given the amount of noise and activity in the tech ecosystem because of the current hype cycle, one quality that helps people stand out is “seriousness”
i think it’s generally good that starting a company has become easier, breaking into tech is demystified, etc (allows more outsiders the chance to succeed as the industry has become less opaque). that being said, when starting a company becomes a status symbol, it attracts some grifters, status-seekers, and people who are generally less serious about the industry (the latter group are not necessarily bad actors like grifters are, but they do contribute to more noise in the ecosystem)
so if you’re hiring someone, choosing who to work with, or deciding who to invest in, you need to have a discerning eye and pick serious people. what’s cool is that they can come from any background, there is not a specific archetype that you need to have to fall into this category.
here are some traits that help break down what seriousness might look like:
decision explainability - are you able to clearly explain the reasoning behind your decisions? did you quit your job “on a whim” or “because it felt right,” or have you thought more seriously about why now is the right time to do so (and not two years ago, or two years in the future)? this is a tough topic for me because i’ve made many of my decisions in a more “intuitive” way, and there are many people out there who have great instincts (which end up leading to them making good decisions). sometimes it’s hard to explain or over-analyze things like this. but being able to explain your decisions may decrease the amount of risk you face when you make them. and also i think a lot of people that resonate with “intuition” over “reasoning” would still be able to describe some basic logic behind their decisions if they really thought hard about it. (also i think there are many people that brand themselves as vibe-y, intuitive, artistic, etc. but really they are secretly reasoning-driven / masters of their craft and they just want to uphold a different public persona)
- constant self-reflection - even if you did make a decision “on a whim” or with incomplete information, do you frequently reflect on these decisions and distill what factors made them good or bad ones? too much of this may lead to decision paralysis, which is not the goal. these reflections can be simple, and the goal is to use them as a tool to make good decisions in the future and better understand yourself. i’ve noticed a lot of very thoughtful people do this
- framework-seeking - a lot of sharp people i know are always looking for new frameworks that can help with decision-making, different ways to view the world, and increasing the odds of their success. they know that you can’t lean too heavily on frameworks (as some might be right for one situation but wrong for another), but enjoy getting different perspectives that can be factored into their decision-making process. they might have a handful of people whose opinions they trust, and constantly run ideas by these people
depth of knowledge - you’re able to talk about one thing for an hour. or when people ask “why” a few times in a row you can go a few levels deeper than your peers / other founders in the space. here are some supporting traits:
- curiosity - some people seem extremely curious about the way the world works, and diving down intense rabbit holes comes naturally to them. if you’re naturally curious about something, it will of course help you be able to go deeper than others who don’t have an authentic curiosity about that same topic
- self-driven - one interesting framework i’ve heard is “if other people didn’t know or care you took this action, would you still do it?” in this case, are you increasing your depth of knowledge on a topic because it feels natural to you or increases the chance of your success, or are you approaching your space in a performative way where you can only handle surface-level questions, and if it weren’t a hot space you wouldn’t pursue it?
ability to focus - it feels like there is an ever-increasing amount of distractions that founders face when building their companies. there are more events, more angels / vc’s, more founders building competitors to you, etc. the ability to focus becomes more important than ever. this might look like: building one project to completion (and achieving some level of success with it before moving on to the next one), working for six months as a barista because you want to do deep problem discovery in the coffee shops space, etc. one friend told me they think about this as a midwit curve
- left side (beginner level, straightforward / naive): founders who aren’t fully ramped into the tech ecosystem are just focused on learning, building, selling
- middle (midwit / “average iq”): founders who get some notoriety might start going to more events / parties, spending time on their public persona (not always a bad thing), getting in drama with other tech founders, and generally letting distractions get the better of them - who could blame them? they started with one person and an idea, now people are paying attention and that’s cool…
- right side (experienced / second-time founders): maybe they already experienced the middle of the curve and moved past it. they figured out that what matters to them most is building this company, which means avoiding as many distractions as possible. counterargument would be that going to events is good because it benefits their brand / startup, or it’s good for their mental health which is good for the company, etc