There is a concept called the Penrose triangle, also known as the impossible triangle. It is a figure that appears to be a solid object, but in reality it cannot exist in three-dimensional space because its geometry is inconsistent.
In a similar way, the founder who possesses all six ideal qualities may not actually exist. However, within the hexagon formed by these six qualities, there is always a point that represents a feasible balance among them. 🤠
Also everyone is unique and not everything is known nor can be tested for. So I tend to think of these things has hiring the green vs getting the ball in the hole in one ⛳
I once met a behavioral economist who spoke to me about overconfidence bias in solo founders. Despite extremely high failure rates, many keep going convinced they’re cut from a different kind of tree.
And maybe they are.
I admire founders deeply. The odds are stacked against them from day one. Statistics don’t favor them. Structure doesn’t favor them. Stability doesn’t favor them.
This is quite fascinating and very true re grit. When I interviewed Chris Barton of Shazam, my favourite quote of his was, “The number one determinant of entrepreneurial success is persistence. If you are not prepared to go to superhuman levels that are beyond rationality to realize your dream, then your chance of finding success is virtually zero.” https://medium.com/swlh/the-story-of-shazam-the-startup-days-6bccebd17d84
I totally get his quote for certain. When I look back and reflect on my own journey - it's insane. What on earth was I thinking? Complete wipe out was ever present for a couple of decades 😵💫
Very true. Like hiring the best people from the company that was forced to pivot because they weren't the market leader. Where every dollar added in ARR took 10x the hustle compared to the category king 💪 different kinda talent found there
I know that the founder assessment plays a major role, but I have never seen any of them using a survey. This makes me wonder if AI could be leveraged to collect empirical data from recorded conversations with a founder, reference interviews, and other relevant sources (recordings, LinkedIn, etc.) to derive a DNA analysis with greater precision than a survey.
On 3/4, I completed and submitted the Founder DNA profile. As of 3/7, I have not received a response email. However, the Founder DNA Profile I submitted was from another copy of the link provider to a different commentor on your LinkedIn post. When I saw your "like" to my comment without the actual link attached to it, I just thought to use the immediately preceding Founder DNA Profile link provided to that commenter. I entered my name, beginning and completing the assessment.
I saw that after completing the profile assessment, you provided the link in your response to my comment. My question is, should I do the profile assessment again using my link? I don't want to create the impression that I had a dry run at it. However, I believe my responses would be consistent. Thanks for your help, and apologies for the confusion.
I've messaged the team at Yareta.ai - you should have your email as it's usually 24 hrs but the demand has been unprecedented - there is also a support email. But if you've completed the questionnaire and added your email then you'll be registered in their system under your email and you should be getting your results.
Hi Chris, I enjoyed completing your quiz last night, it was a tough stretch but thanks :) I was looking forward to the results. Do you send these via email ? Cheers Neil
This is fascinating, but it also makes me wonder what happens when investors start treating a 135-question psychometric as a de facto gatekeeper for “fundable psychology.” At what point does screening for these six traits risk converging founder archetypes around a narrow, VC-optimized profile and filtering out the weird, non-obvious builders who don’t test well but still bend markets?
I think the VC market is so attritional as so few hit winners that the real power is actually with the few winning founders. Whats certain is it a very niche form of financing that is not right for 99.5% of Founders. So it's entirely possible you're right but equally the market of founders is moving very very quickly as are the technologies underneath
I think the major problem with this is the discrepancy between what people answer or think of themselves and what they actually do and what actions they take.
If you ask people "are you a good leader" - they will all jump and say "yes". Simply because most people do not have the experience and the skill to self-assess correctly.
Hence questionnaires like that are pointless and tell us exactly nothing.
Good click bait content but no real world application or usage other than faking your answers (or just being delusional) to stroke your own ego.
Do you really think people taking this will:
1. Be honest
2. Have the skills and experience
3. Can self reflect deeply and objectively enough to provide correct answer
answer
Call me what you think, but having worked with many people over the years I'd say the short answer is no. And most of the results produced are about just as accurate and honest as most social media content and marketing.
I think this is super interesting - the magic wand issue. Any self diagnosis tool is subject to self sabotage. Unbelievable founders don't self sabotage so for those taking the test gaming the answers or aren't self critical they'll get what they need out of it - false score/hope. But for founders who going 10 rounds with themselves they'll learn something and maybe make different decisions based on what they take from it. I know you understand this. I've not taken Cambridge research, a founders teams years of work and created a silver bullet. As always it's what the user takes from the knowlege & experience that matters. Shit in. Shit out. As we say. Thanks for the challenge 🤓
Indeed. I think the major issue is lack of skill to self reflect in most too. I've seen plenty of managers and leaders thinking they're great at something, just because they didn't know what good looks like. The classic running-krugger effect comes into play with this.
It would be interesting if you've added a short questionnaire about persons position, experience and maybe a short test to it, to measure one's skill beforehand and see the correlation between experience, skill and self-assessment.
Would make it for a more interesting study (although probably not gone viral as it would require effort).
Totally agree, Alexander. I use behavioral linguistics, avoids all the bias and gaming problems inherent in self-reports. newsletter.innatelanguage.com
self-belief isn't about feeling confident. it's about moving forward when you don't feel confident. best founders doubt more because they're actually looking at the data.
There is a concept called the Penrose triangle, also known as the impossible triangle. It is a figure that appears to be a solid object, but in reality it cannot exist in three-dimensional space because its geometry is inconsistent.
In a similar way, the founder who possesses all six ideal qualities may not actually exist. However, within the hexagon formed by these six qualities, there is always a point that represents a feasible balance among them. 🤠
Also everyone is unique and not everything is known nor can be tested for. So I tend to think of these things has hiring the green vs getting the ball in the hole in one ⛳
Very sharp idea! 💡
I once met a behavioral economist who spoke to me about overconfidence bias in solo founders. Despite extremely high failure rates, many keep going convinced they’re cut from a different kind of tree.
And maybe they are.
I admire founders deeply. The odds are stacked against them from day one. Statistics don’t favor them. Structure doesn’t favor them. Stability doesn’t favor them.
Until they make it.
The odds of being an outlier are indeed very slim. Very very slim
This is quite fascinating and very true re grit. When I interviewed Chris Barton of Shazam, my favourite quote of his was, “The number one determinant of entrepreneurial success is persistence. If you are not prepared to go to superhuman levels that are beyond rationality to realize your dream, then your chance of finding success is virtually zero.” https://medium.com/swlh/the-story-of-shazam-the-startup-days-6bccebd17d84
I totally get his quote for certain. When I look back and reflect on my own journey - it's insane. What on earth was I thinking? Complete wipe out was ever present for a couple of decades 😵💫
haha - what's the famous quote, "Starting a business is like jumping out of an airplane without a parachute and building it on the way down."
I'm familiar with that quote for sure 😵💫
Interesting way to break this down, Chris.
This made me think of something an exited founder turned investor said to me on Millennial Masters.
He looks closely at whether someone has had to come through real adversity/obstacles to get where they are.
You learn a lot about someone from that, especially in a job where things stop being easy very quickly.
Very true. Like hiring the best people from the company that was forced to pivot because they weren't the market leader. Where every dollar added in ARR took 10x the hustle compared to the category king 💪 different kinda talent found there
this is great, I love it. you claim @chriss that VC's use this or a similar framework to analyse founders?
A small minority are optimising around traits but for all VCs it's the biggest part of the discussion as the Founder(s) is the bet
I know that the founder assessment plays a major role, but I have never seen any of them using a survey. This makes me wonder if AI could be leveraged to collect empirical data from recorded conversations with a founder, reference interviews, and other relevant sources (recordings, LinkedIn, etc.) to derive a DNA analysis with greater precision than a survey.
I think this is infinitely doable ! Also how politics and statecraft is being done. Modeling likelihood of certain outcomes
I do this at www.innatelanguage.com, you can read about it at newsletter.innatelanguage.com. I'm a computational linguist, and you're right on it!
On 3/4, I completed and submitted the Founder DNA profile. As of 3/7, I have not received a response email. However, the Founder DNA Profile I submitted was from another copy of the link provider to a different commentor on your LinkedIn post. When I saw your "like" to my comment without the actual link attached to it, I just thought to use the immediately preceding Founder DNA Profile link provided to that commenter. I entered my name, beginning and completing the assessment.
I saw that after completing the profile assessment, you provided the link in your response to my comment. My question is, should I do the profile assessment again using my link? I don't want to create the impression that I had a dry run at it. However, I believe my responses would be consistent. Thanks for your help, and apologies for the confusion.
I've messaged the team at Yareta.ai - you should have your email as it's usually 24 hrs but the demand has been unprecedented - there is also a support email. But if you've completed the questionnaire and added your email then you'll be registered in their system under your email and you should be getting your results.
Thank you, Chris!!
Hi Chris, I enjoyed completing your quiz last night, it was a tough stretch but thanks :) I was looking forward to the results. Do you send these via email ? Cheers Neil
Normally the email results take 24 hrs
Yes. You'll get an email within 24hrs. The demand has been unprecedented so hopefully it's within but you'll get it the next day for sure ✅
This is fascinating, but it also makes me wonder what happens when investors start treating a 135-question psychometric as a de facto gatekeeper for “fundable psychology.” At what point does screening for these six traits risk converging founder archetypes around a narrow, VC-optimized profile and filtering out the weird, non-obvious builders who don’t test well but still bend markets?
I think the VC market is so attritional as so few hit winners that the real power is actually with the few winning founders. Whats certain is it a very niche form of financing that is not right for 99.5% of Founders. So it's entirely possible you're right but equally the market of founders is moving very very quickly as are the technologies underneath
Are all these questions this shallow?
I think the major problem with this is the discrepancy between what people answer or think of themselves and what they actually do and what actions they take.
If you ask people "are you a good leader" - they will all jump and say "yes". Simply because most people do not have the experience and the skill to self-assess correctly.
Hence questionnaires like that are pointless and tell us exactly nothing.
Good click bait content but no real world application or usage other than faking your answers (or just being delusional) to stroke your own ego.
Do you really think people taking this will:
1. Be honest
2. Have the skills and experience
3. Can self reflect deeply and objectively enough to provide correct answer
answer
Call me what you think, but having worked with many people over the years I'd say the short answer is no. And most of the results produced are about just as accurate and honest as most social media content and marketing.
Cool idea but a massive waste of energy.
I think this is super interesting - the magic wand issue. Any self diagnosis tool is subject to self sabotage. Unbelievable founders don't self sabotage so for those taking the test gaming the answers or aren't self critical they'll get what they need out of it - false score/hope. But for founders who going 10 rounds with themselves they'll learn something and maybe make different decisions based on what they take from it. I know you understand this. I've not taken Cambridge research, a founders teams years of work and created a silver bullet. As always it's what the user takes from the knowlege & experience that matters. Shit in. Shit out. As we say. Thanks for the challenge 🤓
Indeed. I think the major issue is lack of skill to self reflect in most too. I've seen plenty of managers and leaders thinking they're great at something, just because they didn't know what good looks like. The classic running-krugger effect comes into play with this.
It would be interesting if you've added a short questionnaire about persons position, experience and maybe a short test to it, to measure one's skill beforehand and see the correlation between experience, skill and self-assessment.
Would make it for a more interesting study (although probably not gone viral as it would require effort).
Amywho.
Happy weekend Chris!
Have a great weekend
Totally agree, Alexander. I use behavioral linguistics, avoids all the bias and gaming problems inherent in self-reports. newsletter.innatelanguage.com
self-belief isn't about feeling confident. it's about moving forward when you don't feel confident. best founders doubt more because they're actually looking at the data.
Getting up when all is lost 💙
Identity changes are necessary during a business lifetime.
Founders' maturity is the real currency to ensure transitions are successful.
We believed as founders we and the business needed to transform every 18mths - so I definitely believe what you say here Matteo
Curious if/how has the tool been protected from compounding gender and other bias in who makes it as a founder / is invested in?
Then who is founding Airopic the next-gen startup that could destroy AI in seconds. I mean bodyguards for Ai.
I'm trying to visualize AI body guards - it's a challenge 🤓