[ser0]

Dare I say that given the choice of stretching the truth or admitting failure, startups will always choose stretching the truth. Often the truth is just seen as yet-to-be-realised potential. This is the nature of startups, which have limited runway and thus have to make the most out of their opportunities.

By not doing everything you can to get more funds, land a client, or hire that candidate, a startup increases the probability of failure. When a startup fails it's not only the founders that are affected but the whole organisation. How can you make a questionable ethical choice that guarantees the moral outcome is people lose jobs and lives you interact with daily are negatively impacted?

The challenge here though is that the consequences of questionable choices add up. If all choices turn out to be wrong, you end up with hires question why they were hired in the first place, partners that realise they joined on a hope and a prayer, and investors that realised they backed a dud. However, if all choices turn out to be right, then you become a visionary that saved the company multiple times. Perhaps even mythologising your bluff.

Theses risks and stakes contribute to why we lionise successful startups and founders, and why key decision makers generally will take their chances; if they wanted safety they would've taken a corporate job instead of founding or joining a startup.