Loading...
Answers
MenuWhat is the correlation between launching a startup and having health problems? Do you have to sacrifice your health to succeed?
This question has no further details.
Answers
No reason whatsoever. Sacrificing all of your time (consequently trading that in for your health) is a very dangerous and unsustainable approach. I've seen many entrepreneurs burn out quickly because of this.
When I'm coaching other entrepreneurs, I always encourage putting yourself first (food, exercise, leisure) to be at your 110% for your startup and family.
Yes. I00% correlation. If you really want to succeed in a big way, then I recommend simultaneously contracting HIV, Ebola, and the black plague. Get started chain smoking as well!
Replace "launching a startup" with any other variable and the answer will be the same.
What does it profit you to successfully launch a startup and not be able to enjoy the "spoils of war" or, worse, to have to spend your spoils on medical bills? Similar to the check engine and other lights that come on in a vehicle, health problems are the warning signs that a part of the body is malfunctioning. To ignore those signs and keep driving (regardless of where you are in the startup process) is to put yourself, passengers and other drivers at risk. Follow the owner's manual and go in for service as prescribed, i.e., get the appropriate rest and relaxation, eat well, exercise, etc.
If life expectancy averages remain the same, your body has to last well past your startup into your 70s and 80s. When you burn out early, you short-circuit the agility needed for your later years. It doesn't help that metabolism decreases as you get older so if you don't make time for exercise, good eating and rest now, your body will ignore you later ...
The work-related health problems we see today tend to be linked to stress, sitting at a desk all day, working late hours, not taking the time to eat healthily and exercise regularly, not taking proper time off at all. These factors can be just as prevalent in an office job as in a startup environment.
Personally, I used to get migraines in my corporate job. I thought naively that creating more of an independent and flexible lifestyle would automatically make me more healthy and relaxed. As it turns out, I'm the same self-motivated and ambitious person I was before, and I'm working harder than ever! Now I have a different kind of stress today, and I'm enjoying every minute... but I'm afraid I still get migraines from time to time! Health is a factor of your genetics along with your lifestyle choices.
The whole concept of work-life balance is an artificial dichotomy and it's more a question of an overall sense of balance across the different aspects of life that are important to you and your wellbeing. In my case, this means keeping myself challenged and fulfilled; earning enough money; spending time alone and with friends and family; eating well and staying fit; learning new skills and having new experiences; travelling; having fun; and so on.
When it comes to the question of what it takes to succeed, the key is first to define what “succeeding” means to you. What are the goals that you want to achieve? And, most importantly, why? Real success comes from setting meaningful goals. One of my favourite quotes is this:
“It doesn’t really matter how fast you’re going if you’re heading in the wrong direction.” - Stephen Covey, author of the classic, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People
So even if you’re achieving those goals, you’re ticking them off at an impressive pace, what is the point if you don’t actually care about the result? Or, worse, if the result is detrimental to you in some way, including perhaps your health?
Having the right goals in place is fundamental to successfully achieving them and for that achievement to really contribute to your happiness and life satisfaction. So I encourage you to define what that 'ideal' balance is for you, and what 'success' means.
Let me know if you want to chat further about your specific situation and your goals!
Your health does not need to suffer as a result of launching a start up. The correlation is a very good question to ask and it often is our bodies response to something being "not right." Those that have an intimate relationship with their bodies, often are the most successful in other areas of their life. Our bodies talk to us in the form of "dis-ease." Successful business leaders and champions know this, and have a daily practice that feeds their ultimate health. My clients experience success when the invest first in themselves and a disciplined daily practice that includes support. To your health and wealth!
Sacrificing one's health to launch a startup, or to launch anything for that matter is a choice. Unless it's not a choice because one feels powerless in terms of their capacity to prioritize what they value.
If a person values health, they'll find a way to preserve their health while they launch the startup.
On the other hand if health is not something that one values, then sacrificing health is not a concern...sadly this is the case for many entrepreneurs as my experience with clients has shown me.
I'm a proponent of not just preserving, but using health to leverage one's capacity to launch a thriving business.
The two are not mutually exclusive but in fact one can fuel the other as experience has taught me.
Hope this helps,
Ken
Consciously if one smart entrepreneur defines delegation or responsibilities metrics then not all the stress and todo fall as his / her pie. At times you feel like doing it all by yourself to stay on top of competition however you can define what's timely to beat market and focus on that one, rest you can delegate. Balance the health by bringing companion in healthyhealthy living lifestyle. One can be your pet or friend or spouse. Take their help in setting up a routine. It will help not to lose health over your startup aspirations. Good luck.
Balance: I've been involved in a few start-ups, a health insurance company and a telemedicine company to name a couple. Both were exciting and interesting products, but also created a bit of anxiety for me. As a result, I realized the importance of maintaining not just my physical health but also my emotional health. I found exercise to be the best way to address my anxiety by literally burning it off which in turn improved my physical health. Enrolling in a structured program at a fitness facility and working with a personal trainer turned out to be the most efficient use of my time and paid off the most. In the end, I think launching a start-up can actually improve your health if you turn some of the adversities you may face, such as anxiety, into an opportunity to exercise and seek out health.
Related Questions
-
What are digital products or services you wish existed and why? How would they help you and/or your business?
As the owner of a web development firm, I am always inventing our own digital products and services. Any service that is web-based and accessible to mobile devices work as long as they solve a business need. The digital products I wish would exist are: 1. Home building services including videos by experienced builders 2. Mail and package weighing digital services 3. More security services for document transfer services. BruceBC
-
VCs: What are some pitch deck pet peeves?
Avoid buzzwords: - every founder thinks their idea is disruptive/revolutionary - every founder says their financial projections are conservative Instead: - explain your validation & customer traction - explain the assumptions underlying your projections Avoid: - focusing extensively on the product/technology rather than on the business - misunderstanding the purpose of financial projections; they exist in a pitch deck to: a) validate the founders understanding of running a business b) provide a sense of magnitude of the opportunity versus the amount of capital requested c) confirm the go-to-market strategy (nothing undermines a pitch faster than financial projections disconnected from the declared go-to-market approach) d) generally discredit you as someone who understands how to build a company; for instance we'll capture 10% of our market, 1% of China, etc. Top down financial projections get big laughs from investors after you leave the room. bonus) don't show 90% profit margins. Ever. Even if you'll actually have them. Ever. Instead: - avoid false precision by rounding all projections to nearest thousands ($000) - include # units / # subscribers / # customers above revenue line; this goes hand-in-hand with building a bottom up revenue model and implicitly reveals assumptions. Investors will determine if you are realistic, conservative, or out of your mind based largely on the customer acquisition numbers and your explanation of how they will be achieved. - highlight your assumptions & milestones on first customers, cash flow break even, and other customer acquisition and expense metrics that are relevant Avoid: - thinking about investor money as your money - approaching the pitch from your mindset (I need money); investors have to be skeptics, so understand their perspective. - bad investors; it's tempting to think that any money is good money. You can't get an investor to leave once they are in without Herculean efforts and costs (and if you're asking for money, you can't afford it). If you're not on the same page with an investor on how to run/grow the business, you'll regret every waking hour. Instead: - it's their money; tell them how you are going to utilize their money to make them more money - you're a founder, a true believer. Your mantra should be "de-risk, de-risk, de-risk". Perception of risk is the #1 reason an investor says no. Many are legitimate, but often enough it's simply a perception that could have been addressed. - beyond the pitch, make the conversation 2-way. Ask questions of the investor (you might learn awesome things or uncover problems) and talk to at least two other founders they invested in more than 6 months ago.JP
-
What is a better title for a startup head....Founder or CEO? Are there any pros/cons to certain titles?
The previous answers given here are great, but I've copied a trick from legendary investor Monish Pabrai that I've used in previous startups that seems to work wonders -- especially if your company does direct B2B sales. Many Founders/ CEOs are hung up on having the Founder/ CEO/ President title. As others have mentioned, those titles have become somewhat devalued in today's world -- especially if you are in a sales meeting with a large organization. Many purchasing agents at large organizations are bombarded by Founders/ CEOs/ Presidents visiting them all day. This conveys the image that a) your company is relatively small (the CEO of GM never personally sells you a car) and b) you are probably the most knowledgeable person in the organization about your product, but once you land the account the client company will mostly be dealing with newly hired second level staff. Monish recommends that Founder/ CEOs hand out a business card that has the title "Head of Sales" or "VP of Sales". By working in the Head of Sales role, and by your ability to speak knowledgeably about the product, you will convey the message that a) every person in the organization is very knowledgeable about the ins and outs of the product (even the sales guys) and b) you will personally be available to answer the client's questions over the long run. I've used this effectively many times myself.VR
-
How much equity should I ask as a C-level executive in a new startup ?
As you may suspect, there really isn't a hard and fast answer. You can review averages to see that a CEO typically becomes a major shareholder in a startup, but your role and renumeration will be based on the perceived value you bring to the organization. You value someone's contribution through equity when you think that they will be able to add long-term benefits, you would prefer that they don't move company part way through the process, and to keep them from being enticed by a better salary (a reason for equity tied to a vesting arrangement). Another reason is when the company doesn't have salary money available but the potential is very strong. In this situation you should be especially diligent in your analysis because you will realize that even the best laid plans sometimes fall completely short. So to get the best mix, you have to be very real about the company's long-term growth potential, your role in achieving it, and the current liquidity necessary to run the operations. It should also be realized that equity needs to be distributed. You cannot distribute 110% and having your cap table recalculated such that your 5% turns into 1% in order to make room for the newly hired head of technology is rather demotivating for the team. Equity should be used to entice a valuable person to join, stay, and contribute. It should not be used in leu of salary that allows an employee to pay their bills. So, like a lot of questions, the answer is really, it depends. Analyzing the true picture of your long-term potential will allow you to more easily determine the correct mix.DH
-
For every success story in Silicon Valley, how many are there that fail?
It all depends on what one decides to be a definition of a "success story." For some entrepreneurs, it might be getting acqui-hired, for some -- a $10M exit, for some -- a $200M exit, and for others -- an IPO. Based on the numbers I have anecdotally heard in conversations over the last decade or so, VCs fund about 1 in 350 ventures they see, and of all of these funded ventures, only about 1 in 10 become really successful (i.e. have a big exit or a successful IPO.) So you are looking at a 1 in 3500 chance of eventual venture success among all of the companies that try to get VC funding. (To put this number in perspective, US VCs invest in about 3000-3500 companies every year.) In addition, there might be a few others (say, maybe another 1-2 in every 10 companies that get VC investments) that get "decent" exits along the way, and hence could be categorized as somewhat successful depending on, again, how one chooses to define what qualifies as a "success story." Finally, there might also be companies that may never need or get around to seeking VC funding. One can, of course, find holes in the simplifying assumptions I have made here, but it doesn't really matter if that number instead is 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10000. The basic point being made here is just that the odds are heavily stacked against new ventures being successful. But that's also one of the distinguishing characteristics of entrepreneurs -- to go ahead and try to bring their idea to life despite the heavy odds. Sources of some of the numbers: http://www.nvca.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ven... https://www.pwcmoneytree.com/MTP... http://paulgraham.com/future.html Here are others' calculations of the odds that lead to a similar conclusion: 1.Dear Entrepreneurs: Here's How Bad Your Odds Of Success Are http://www.businessinsider.com/startup-odds-of-success-2013-5 2.Why 99.997% Of Entrepreneurs May Want To Postpone Or Avoid VC -- Even If You Can Get It http://www.forbes.com/sites/dileeprao/2013/07/29/why-99-997-of-entrepreneurs-may-want-to-postpone-or-avoid-vc-even-if-you-can-get-it/MB
the startups.com platform
Copyright © 2025 Startups.com. All rights reserved.