Successful founders are the worst people to take advice from. Not because they’re lying. Because they genuinely don’t know why they succeeded. And following their advice will kill your company at predictable rates.
Watch how this plays out:
A founder builds a billion-dollar company. They look back and see what they did: talked to users, iterated fast, did things that don’t scale, built distribution before product.
They share their playbook. New founders follow it religiously.
And die.
Not because they executed poorly. Not because they lacked talent. Because they copied tactics from someone who can’t explain why those tactics actually worked.
This isn’t about bad advice. It’s about a fundamental limitation in how humans understand their own success.
Let me show you what’s actually happening and why it’s costing you everything.
The Pattern Nobody Talks About
In reality, dozens of companies were doing exactly what Airbnb did — talking to customers, iterating on feedback, doing things that don’t scale and building community.
Most died. Airbnb became worth $75 billion.
Same tactics. Opposite results.
This pattern repeats everywhere. Ask successful founders why they won, and they’ll tell you:
- “We listened to customers”
- “We moved fast and broke things”
- “We focused on distribution”
- “We did things that don’t scale”
Meanwhile, their competitors were doing identical things. And burning through cash before quietly shutting down.
So what’s the difference?
Successful founders teach you WHAT they did. They cannot teach you WHY it worked for them and not for everyone else doing the same things.
This is the practitioner’s paradox: those who did it can describe what happened. They cannot explain the actual mechanism behind their success.
And when you follow their advice without understanding that mechanism, you’re copying tactics that only worked because of something they can’t see, and you can’t replicate.
Why Founders Can’t See Their Own Success
Startup Genome analyzed tens of thousands of startups and found something that breaks conventional wisdom: companies with 1-2 senior advisors were 100% more likely to scale successfully than those without advisors.
Stanford research has shown that startups with mentors are 1.7 times more likely to raise capital and have higher survival rates.
MIT found that founder isolation is one of the top three predictors of failure. More predictive than lack of funding or poor market timing.
But here’s what makes this fascinating: successful founders who went it alone look back and think, “See? I didn’t need advisors.”
This is an example of survivorship bias operating at scale. For every founder who succeeds alone, dozens fail who might have succeeded with guidance. But we only hear from the survivors. They’re the ones writing LinkedIn posts and giving conference talks.
The deeper issue? They’re describing their success from inside it, where they couldn’t see what actually made the difference.
Let me show you what they miss.
The Invisible Causal Chain
When Yvon Chouinard built Patagonia, he didn’t strategize about environmental positioning. He was an environmentalist and rock climber who couldn’t tolerate building a company that harmed what he loved. The “don’t buy this jacket” campaigns weren’t marketing tactics. They were expressions of who he was.
In 2011, Patagonia ran a Black Friday ad proclaiming “Don’t Buy This Jacket,” urging consumers to consider the environmental impact of their purchases. Only a company genuinely driven by environmental values would attempt such an anti-marketing move. Chouinard has said he never intended Patagonia to grow at all costs; he’d rather promote his values even if it meant selling less.
When James Dyson spent years on 5,127 prototypes, he wasn’t executing an innovation strategy. He was an engineer who found it intolerable that vacuum cleaners lost suction. “It took me 5,127 prototypes… It was highly frustrating, of course, but worth it,” he later said. The “relentless innovation” positioning wasn’t chosen; it was inevitable given who he was.
When Dietrich Mateschitz built Red Bull around extreme sports and human performance after discovering energy drinks in Thailand in the early 1980s, he wasn’t running a playbook. He was genuinely obsessed with pushing human limits. Red Bull’s marketing never highlighted taste (many find it awful); instead, everything centred on “Red Bull Gives You Wings,” associating the drink with adrenaline and peak performance.
Ask any of them why they succeeded, and they’ll tell you about their tactics. What they won’t tell you, because they can’t see it, is this:
Their identity drove unconscious positioning choices, and those positions made certain tactics inevitable while rendering others useless.
Here’s the actual causal chain:
Founder Identity → Unconscious Positioning Alignment → Tactics That Fit → Success
But founders experience it as: Tactics → Success
They think they chose tactics that created their positioning. The reality? Their identity created positioning without them realizing it, and that authentic positioning made certain tactics work.
This is why copying their tactics fails. You’re copying the visible output while missing the invisible foundation.
The Identity Transfer Nobody Sees
When other outdoor brands copy Patagonia’s sustainability initiatives, they fail. Same tactics. Opposite results.
Why? Patagonia’s tactics are identity expression. Competitors’ tactics are strategic theatre.
Customers can tell the difference instantly.
When Chouinard says, “Don’t buy this jacket unless you need it,” it’s authentic. He genuinely believes overconsumption is destroying what he loves. When a competitor does it, it’s a marketing stunt that contradicts their growth targets. In 2022, Chouinard transferred ownership to a trust, ensuring that all profits are dedicated to fighting climate change — the ultimate expression of identity through business.
One flows from identity. The other contradicts it.
This explains every pattern of tactical copying that fails:
Companies copy Tesla’s direct-to-consumer model and over-the-air updates. It feels forced. Why? Because Musk’s identity as a first-principles engineer who hates inefficient intermediaries made those choices obvious. He insisted on selling direct because he felt traditional dealers had “a fundamental conflict” pushing electric vehicles when they profit more from gas cars needing maintenance. For traditional automakers, these are just tactics that contradict everything else they do.
Energy drink brands copy Red Bull’s extreme sports sponsorships. They barely register. Why? Because Mateschitz’s genuine obsession with human performance limits made those investments authentic. He even funded Felix Baumgartner’s Stratos space jump from 128,000 feet. For competitors, they’re just marketing spend.
Tech companies copy Stripe’s developer-first approach. It fails. Why? Because the Collison brothers’ identities as developers frustrated by existing payment systems made that positioning inevitable. For companies led by businesspeople, it’s just a go-to-market strategy.
The pattern: Identity makes positioning authentic. Positioning makes tactics work. Without the identity foundation, you’re performing someone else’s playbook.
And it shows.
Why Distance Reveals What Proximity Hides
Here’s something that breaks all conventional wisdom about taking advice: the best insights into competitive strategy often come from people who have never built companies.
Michael Porter never ran a business. Yet competitive strategy exists because of his frameworks.
Clayton Christensen didn’t disrupt anything. But he explained disruption better than any founder who did.
Al Ries and Jack Trout never built brands. But they defined how positioning actually works.
Why can observers see what practitioners cannot?
Because builders operate from the inside out. They’re living inside their own identity. It’s invisible to them the way water is invisible to fish. They’re making decisions that feel obvious because those decisions align with who they are.
They experience it as “making strategic choices.” They can’t see their identity making the choices through them.
Observers work from outside in. They can see patterns across companies. They can see which founders own concepts versus claim attributes. They can identify positioning that founders don’t even know they have.
Most critically, they can see the founder’s identity expressing itself through business decisions in ways the founder cannot.
This creates three layers of analysis:
Layer 1 – Tactics: What did they do? (Features, pricing, distribution)
Layer 2 – Positioning: What mental territory did they own? (The concept in customers’ minds)
Layer 3 – Identity: What founder identity made that positioning inevitable? (The invisible driver)
Successful founders giving advice operate at Layer 1. They teach tactics because that’s what they consciously experienced.
Great advisors operate at Layer 3. They can see your identity, recognize which positioning would be authentic for you, and identify which tactics would actually work.
This is why you need advisors. Not because you’re weak. Because you cannot see yourself operating while you’re operating.
What This Actually Costs
A well-funded SaaS company raised $18M Series A. Brilliant founders. Clear product-market fit. Strong traction.
An experienced advisor who’d scaled three enterprise software companies asked one question: “Your ACV is $12K but your CAC is $18K. What changes when you move upmarket?”
The founders dismissed it. They’d been following advice from successful founders about moving fast and figuring things out as they went.
“We’ll figure it out.”
Eighteen months later: dead. Cash burned. Team scattered.
The founder’s post-mortem: “We confused confidence with competence. We didn’t know what we didn’t know and by the time we figured it out, we’d run out of runway.”
That advisor’s question would have revealed their unit economics were broken. One conversation could have prevented an $18M lesson.
But here’s what makes this tragic: the founders couldn’t see the problem because they were inside it.
They were following tactics from successful founders. Those founders had made similar bets and won. What those founders couldn’t teach (and what these founders couldn’t see) was that the original founders’ identity-positioning alignment made risky unit economics viable during their growth phase.
The copying founders didn’t have that alignment. The tactics failed predictably.
The advisor could see it immediately because he’d watched this exact pattern kill companies before.
The Research That Proves Both Arguments
Canadian Business Development Bank tracked companies that created advisory boards. Sales grew 67% in three years; nearly triple the prior 23% rate. Average annual sales were 24% higher and productivity was 18% higher versus control groups.
Harvard Business School research found peer advice from experienced mentors led to 28% larger startups and significantly lower failure rates.
Journal of Business Venturing showed startups with advisory boards had 34% higher revenue growth and 41% better survival rates over 5 years.
But here’s what the research reveals that most founders miss: advisors work because they can see what founders cannot see from inside their businesses.
When Brian Chesky credits Paul Graham’s advice to “focus on 100 customers that love you” as saving Airbnb, he’s describing tactics (Layer 1).
What he cannot see: Graham recognized Chesky’s identity-driven positioning around belonging and community. Graham knew that positioning required depth over breadth. The tactic flowed from positioning insight Chesky couldn’t see from inside.
When Marc Andreessen calls Jim Clark and Jim Barksdale his “greatest mentors,” he’s acknowledging they could see patterns he couldn’t. They’d scaled companies before. They could see which of Andreessen’s identity-driven impulses would work at scale and which wouldn’t.
The tactic isn’t “get mentors.” The insight is: you’re structurally blind to your own patterns. You need people who can see what you cannot.
72% of entrepreneurs experience mental health challenges, with isolation being a primary contributor. Founders experiencing isolation show significantly higher burnout rates, slower decision-making on critical pivots, and higher rates of preventable strategic errors.
The advice to “figure it out yourself” isn’t only strategically weak but also ineffective and potentially dangerous.
The Three Blind Spots That Kill Companies
Blind Spot 1: Your Identity Operating Unconsciously
You think you’re making strategic choices. You’re actually expressing your identity through business decisions.
You keep choosing convenience over margins. You see it as a strategic error you need to fix. An advisor sees your identity as someone who hates friction and says, “Stop fighting who you are. Build positioning around eliminating friction. Make it your superpower instead of your weakness.”
You experience business decisions as strategic calculations. Advisors see your identity creating your positioning unconsciously.
Blind Spot 2: The Mental Territory You’re Actually Operating In
You think you’re competing on features in an established category. You’re actually reinforcing someone else’s mental territory.
You’re optimizing CAC/LTV ratios, improving Net Retention, and reducing churn through better onboarding. An advisor asks: “Whose category definition are you validating with these optimizations?”
You realize you’re making Salesforce stronger by competing in mental territory they already own. You’re not competing with them. You’re trapped in their framework.
You see tactics. Advisors see positioning.
Blind Spot 3: Which Tactics Align With Your Authentic Position
You think successful founders’ tactics are universal. They only work when they flow from identity-aligned positioning.
You’re copying Stripe’s developer-first approach because it worked for them. An advisor asks: “What’s your actual identity? Because if you’re not developers frustrated by existing solutions, you’re performing their identity instead of expressing yours.”
You see tactics to copy. Advisors see identity-tactics misalignment that will fail predictably.
The Silicon Valley Feedback Loop
Here’s why this pattern perpetuates:
Step 1: Successful founders give advice based on tactics, not realizing those tactics worked because of identity-driven positioning they don’t consciously recognize.
Step 2: New founders follow those tactics religiously, trying to act TOWARD the positioning instead of FROM authentic identity.
Step 3: The tactics fail because they’re not grounded in the founder’s actual identity. They’re strategic theatre.
Step 4: They conclude they needed better execution. They never realize tactics only work when they flow from authentic identity-positioning alignment.
Step 5: They pivot to copying a different successful founder. The cycle repeats.
Every startup now:
- Launches fast (because that worked for other founders, but those founders’ identities made speed natural; forced speed contradicts some identities)
- Talks to users constantly (because customer development is gospel, but founder-driven innovators like Steve Jobs often succeed by leading customers rather than following stated desires)
- Do things that don’t scale (because they worked for Airbnb, but Airbnb founders’ identities made hospitality-focused tactics natural; tech founders forcing hospitality behaviours fail)
They’re following tactical playbooks without understanding that successful companies win through identity → positioning → tactics alignment.
And they’re doing it alone, which means nobody can show them what they cannot see.
What Great Advisory Actually Looks Like
Here’s the distinction most founders miss:
Bad advisor tells you: “You need to hire a VP of Sales.”
Great advisor asks you: “Walk me through your sales process and where it’s breaking down. What’s your win rate by channel? What’s your average deal size?”
One gives prescriptions. The other reveals diagnostic gaps.
When a fintech startup struggled with enterprise adoption, I didn’t pitch a go-to-market framework. I asked: “What objection surfaces in legal review that kills deals?”
That question revealed a compliance issue the team hadn’t diagnosed. One conversation compressed six months of expensive trial-and-error into a two-week sprint.
I could ask that question because:
- I’d seen the pattern across multiple companies (distance reveals structure)
- I could see they were competing in someone else’s mental territory (positioning blind spot)
- I recognized their identity-driven approach to simplicity was creating compliance friction (identity-tactics misalignment)
The founders were too close to see any of these layers.
This is what operating in blind spots looks like in practice.
The Evaluation Framework
Most founders use terrible criteria for evaluating advisors:
“Have they built a company from scratch?”
“Have they failed catastrophically and learned from it?”
“Do they have founder experience?”
These miss the point. A DTC founder has little relevant knowledge of enterprise SaaS. Generic “founder experience” means nothing without context.
And requiring someone to have “lost millions” is hazing logic: I suffered, so should you. Should we disqualify advisors who were smart enough to avoid catastrophic mistakes?
Better evaluation criteria:
1. Can they see patterns across multiple contexts?
The power of advisors comes from distance. They’ve seen your exact problem in 5, 10, 50 companies. They can see what you cannot see from inside one company.
Research on the FDA’s Breakthrough Device Program shows devices receiving expedited review had mean decision times of 152 days versus 338 days for standard approvals. An advisor with regulatory expertise can compress your learning curve by months or years — time you literally cannot buy back.
2. Can they operate in your blind spots?
Do they ask questions that reveal assumptions you didn’t know you were making? Do they see your identity expressing itself through decisions you think are strategic?
Studies of over 20,000 venture-backed companies found that independent advisors join at inflection points to provide pattern recognition and network leverage that founders cannot access alone.
3. Can they see your identity-positioning-tactics chain?
Great advisors don’t just give better tactics. They help you discover your authentic positioning so you can find tactics that actually fit who you are.
If they’re giving you tactical advice similar to what worked for other companies, pass. You need someone who can see what makes YOU successful based on who YOU are.
The Three-Question Litmus Test
Before giving anyone equity or significant access, ask:
Question 1: Have they opened doors I couldn’t open in the past 90 days?
Advisors earn equity through network leverage. If they can’t demonstrate concrete introductions that move your business forward, they’re not worth the dilution.
Question 2: Do they ask questions that reveal assumptions I didn’t know I was making?
This is the clearest signal. Bad advisors (essentially glorified vendors) give answers. Great advisors surface better questions that reveal your blind spots.
Question 3: Can they see my identity-positioning-tactics chain when I cannot?
If they’re just teaching you what worked for someone else, they’re operating at Layer 1 (tactics). You need someone who can see Layer 3 (identity) and help you build from there.
If yes to all three, give equity. If no to any, keep looking.
The Self-Audit
Before dismissing advisors or doubling down on going it alone, audit yourself honestly:
When did you last change your mind based on external input?
If you can’t remember, you’re not learning, you’re confirming biases. This is the clearest signal you need advisors who challenge your assumptions.
Can you articulate what mental territory you own versus compete in?
If you describe your positioning in terms of features or “we’re like X but better,” you’re blind to Layer 2. You need advisors who can see what concept you actually own (or don’t own) in customers’ minds.
Do your tactics feel forced, or do they flow naturally from who you are?
If business decisions feel like strategic calculations rather than obvious expressions of your values, you’re acting TOWARD positioning instead of FROM identity. You need advisors who can see that misalignment.
If you struggled with any of these, you have structural blind spots. Not because you’re weak. Because you’re human.
Why Now
You can nail every tactic. Talk to users constantly. Iterate faster than anyone. Do all the things that successful founders did. And still lose to someone who understands the game underneath.
Because tactics only work when they flow from authentic identity-aligned positioning. Without that foundation, you’re performing strategic theatre that customers see through immediately.
The gap between tactical sophistication and strategic clarity has never been wider. Silicon Valley has never been more advanced in execution. Growth frameworks. Distribution playbooks. Retention optimization.
But execution excellence without strategic clarity just means losing faster to someone who owns the mental territory you’re competing in.
The False Binary
The real choice isn’t between “self-reliant founder” and “advisor-dependent founder.”
It’s between:
Isolated founder — Vulnerable to preventable mistakes, slower learning curves, higher burnout, blind to identity-positioning-tactics chain, copying tactics that fail predictably.
Strategically resourceful founder — Knows what they don’t know, seeks specific expertise from people who can see their blind spots, maintains judgment while leveraging distance to see patterns they cannot.
Carol Dweck’s Stanford research calls the first approach “fixed mindset thinking,” viewing asking for help as a weakness rather than a strategic resource allocation.
The second approach acknowledges a fundamental truth: human beings cannot observe themselves objectively while they are operating. This isn’t a weakness. It’s how perception works.
You cannot see your own identity driving your decisions. You cannot see what mental territory you’re actually operating in. You cannot see which tactics align with your authentic positioning versus which you’re copying.
You need someone who can.
Finally. Successful founders give terrible advice. Not because they’re bad people or trying to mislead you. Because they genuinely cannot see what made their tactics work.
They teach Layer 1 (tactics) while being blind to Layer 2 (positioning) and Layer 3 (identity).
When you follow their advice, you’re copying tactics without the positioning foundation that made those tactics work. You’re performing their identity instead of expressing yours.
This is why:
- You can do everything right and still fail
- Identical tactics produce opposite results
- Following proven playbooks leads to predictable failures
- Competitors with “worse” execution beat you
The mechanism is simple: Identity drives positioning. Positioning determines which tactics work. Tactics without that foundation are just expensive theatre.
You need advisors, not because you’re weak. You need them because:
- You’re structurally blind to your own identity driving your decisions
- You cannot see what mental territory you’re actually operating in
- You cannot see which tactics align with your authentic positioning
- You cannot see patterns across companies while living inside one company
- Distance reveals what proximity hides
Kauffman Foundation research shows high-growth startups with 3-5 strategic advisors in relevant domains had 2.8x higher exit valuations than those with 0-2. You’re not diluting value by giving advisors equity. You’re creating it by gaining access to people who can see what you cannot.
The question isn’t whether you need advisors. It’s whether you can see yourself clearly enough to know you don’t.
Going it alone isn’t a strength. It’s refusing to acknowledge a fundamental limitation in human perception.
Strategic resourcefulness is a strength. It’s recognizing that successful founders teach tactics without understanding the invisible foundation that made those tactics work—and having the wisdom to find advisors who can see that foundation for you.
Stop copying tactics from founders who can’t explain why they worked.
Start building from your authentic identity with advisors who can see what you cannot.
That’s the difference between playing someone else’s game and owning your own.
Important Note: While founder identity often drives positioning, success requires multiple factors, including market timing, execution quality, and sometimes a bit of luck. Research by Hambrick & Mason on “Upper Echelons Theory” and extensive studies on founder imprinting validate that founder values significantly influence company outcomes, but context matters. The identity-driven approach works powerfully for consumer brands and category creators where emotional resonance is crucial, but operational excellence or strategic partnerships may be more important in other contexts. The key is understanding when identity-positioning alignment is your competitive advantage versus when other factors dominate.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.