[idlewords]

If you're awake at 4 AM because of anxiety about growth rate and lack of capital, make some hot cocoa and then thank God you don't have real problems.

I'm not saying this to be snide. Those problems feel real and scary enough. But as the other replies to this comment demonstrate, there is a vast spectrum of human misery that we live on the far end of.

Anything you can do to remain mindful of that will have the side effect of letting you sleep like a baby, even the night before the big investor meeting.

[feedjoelpie]

I don't disagree, but when you're growing and responsible for the economic livelihoods of several households, it's hard to write your anxieties off as first world. Because it's not really about you anymore, and a "whatever, I'll be fine in the end" attitude just feels, selfish? Irresponsible? I think a great many of us would sleep just fine if we only bore responsibility for ourselves. I'm not arguing that anyone should be destroying themselves over their startup, just that writing all the anxieties off as first world problems just isn't a reasonable ask for founders who care deeply about their teams.

[tptacek]

The kinds of people that start tech companies in this economy are among the most employable people in the entire world. If your company fails, you'll do the same thing a laid-off steelworker will do: get another job. But of course you'll succeed at doing that almost immediately.

[lmeyerov]

When I talk to other founders about the gut of steel, it's not about the money but the people.

'Real' founders are fine -- we have a lower expected salary anyways but are probably extra employable. (Imagine who knows the most about contributing to a business!)

The issue is that we were the ones who convinced the people we sat down with to put their eggs in our basket. Investors put in their hard-earned money, employees devote their precious personal hours and "one shot", and customers (in B2Bs) put their own businesses on the line. A company is a social bedrock and we're ultimately responsible.

This stuff can certainly be rationalized away. Professional investors spread their risk and angels are often in it for the fun, employees get a bundle of a paycheck, lottery ticket, and personal responsibility, customers make business decisions, and everyone is getting a seat on the rocket. However, founders are human and part of that means having empathy.

[tptacek]

You made tea shoot out of my nose when I read "Investors put their hard-earned money...".

[rdlecler1]

I think that's only true if the company has a decent sized win. As the CEO I actually feel pretty much unemployable. You're the ultimate generalist in a world where companies need specialists.

[davidiach]

This is entirely true, and it isn't only that you cannot find another job as a CEO, but you might have a really hard time finding any job at all even if it is lower status (non-executive).

[idlewords]

I find this really hard to believe. Sorry, you can't pick strawberries for us, you've been a CEO!

[7Figures2Commas]

I personally believe that founders have a moral obligation to do right by their employees, but ultimately it's important for founders to recognize that employees are responsible for their own economic livelihoods. Startups, particularly early-stage startups, come with a unique set of risks and prospective employees must evaluate those risks in the context of their own situations.

Ironically, a lot of the stress that some founders experience comes from their own lack of transparency with employees. I don't doubt that many founders care deeply about their teams, but many are also so mortified at the thought of not being able to recruit and retain that they try to paint the most favorable picture of the startup's current state, conveniently ignoring facts that aren't so favorable.

Obviously, the information that founders can reasonably share with employees changes over time as a company grows, but at an early-stage startup, there's really no excuse for anything less than full disclosure. As the founder of such a startup, you must accept that you can't guarantee your employees continued employment, but you can promise them that you'll be honest about the company's state.

[idlewords]

That's a weirdly paternalistic view to take. Your team is going to be just fine without you, if it comes to that.

[wuliwong]

Seriously, I worked at a startup for a year, I didn't like the direction it was going nor my roll there. I got a new job which was a step up from where I was before the startup. Honestly, in todays economy in the United States, I see very little risk for me joining a startup. I work for one of the top 5 largest software companies in the world but I'd certainly go work for another startup. It's not like they aren't giving me full benefits and a 401k. In fact, the perks are sometimes better at new startups!

[decentrality]

The mind-churn is not anxiety always, but consciousness of the sheer gravity of what you are doing.

The "vast spectrum of human misery" exists unless or until someone's mind-churn waking them up at night results in viable solutions and real growth.

It's not one or the other, both are linked situations. There is a seriousness about all the "preoccupation" ... it's even natural and organic in the sense that it is how one hand washes the other in the grand scheme of it all.

[tptacek]

"Sheer gravity"? You're doing something that an enormous number of Americans do every year. Small business employment is a gigantic fraction of the economy. The difference between you and the owner of a barbershop is that the barber doesn't work in an industry that tricks him into believing he might be a millionaire in 4 years. The consequences of failure, on the other hand? Pretty much the same.

[wuliwong]

Honestly, the consequences of the failing Barbershop are probably worse. He will probably lose a good amount of personal capital (unless he somehow got investors?) and his employment prospects will be to cut hair at someone else's barbershop.