<story><title>What we learned in studying the most effective founders</title><url>https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/entrepreneurs/effective-founders-project/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>diob</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m honestly more interested in studying the most ineffective founders.&lt;p&gt;We spend too much time focusing on survivors, when I feel like the best learning comes from looking at failure.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;d be willing to be there&amp;#x27;s a lot of failed &amp;#x2F; failing companies out there doing the exact same thing as the &amp;quot;most effective founders&amp;quot;, so what makes them different?  I&amp;#x27;d be interested to know.</text></comment>
<story><title>What we learned in studying the most effective founders</title><url>https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/entrepreneurs/effective-founders-project/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>zcw100</author><text>Self help pablum for aspiring founders. I&amp;#x27;ll just highlight a couple of the ridiculous things in there. &amp;quot;Minimize unnecessary micromanagement&amp;quot;. There&amp;#x27;s just a ton in there. First, micromanagement already has a negative connotation so recommending to minimize it rather than eliminate it is just an obnoxious hedge. Then it doubles down on recommending minimizing only &amp;quot;unnecessary&amp;quot; micromanagement. You just go right ahead micromanaging those losers who deserve to be micromanaged. How else are you going to drive out the undesirables?&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Invite disagreement&amp;quot;. All hedge. &amp;quot;some studies have shown&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;in tern it &lt;i&gt;could&lt;/i&gt; mean more innovative and inclusive products&amp;quot;. Not because you want to show respect for the opinions of others or that you listen to what people have to say but because it &lt;i&gt;could&lt;/i&gt; lead to more innovative and inclusive products ie. &amp;quot;I don&amp;#x27;t really care what you have to say other than how it hits my bottom line but go on talking. I&amp;#x27;ll let you know if I think you say something worthwhile&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Keep pace with expertise&amp;quot; This was nice until you get to the bottom of the actual report and find out that Josh has an undergraduate degree in Biology and an MBA. I&amp;#x27;m not sure how that shows any expertise in what is being written about but please go on nor how that could possibly qualify you as Chief of Staff at Google Research but there it is.&lt;p&gt;I think what&amp;#x27;s more interesting about stuff like this is not what they&amp;#x27;re saying but what they&amp;#x27;re selling. I can only guess that the real research Google did was that they needed more startups to get started using their products and that they would continue to use and expand their use of Google services as they grow.</text></comment>