Hypothesis: Having been a founder gives you a useful frame of reference for work-related challenges. The rest of this post is my thinking on why this might be true. --- When facing any challenge at work, as yourself, "what if this was _my company?_" **Common Workplace Challenges** - Dealing with disagreement between team members - Making hiring & firing decisions - Tackling ambitious, ambiguous projects - Getting buy-in from other team members - Communication - ... etc The thing is, these challenges are all a subset of being a founder. Founding a company is simply a harder problem than most of the problems you face as an employee, so its good practice. All I'm really saying is that if you work on something very difficult, and then move back to something moderately difficult, its going to feel easier. --- It is true that as a founder you get some advantages. - You're the boss. - You stand to gain the most if things work out. - You (probably) care deeply about the problem being solved[^1]. - You (probably) have access to mentors and investors who all want to see you win and are willing to help. - You might have access to one or more cofounders to share the burden. However, the meta problem of "solving the problems no one else in the org is solving" never goes away, and does not care what your position is. [^1]: This is hopefully also true if you're an employee, but its not strictly required. --- ## The point When facing a challenge at work, ask yourself what you would do if _you were the founder_ of the company? I find its a useful frame because it requires facing any ambiguity head on. It demands that you find a way to approach a problem, even if you're initially not sure how to. Most of all, this mindset makes you _responsible_. You give yourself ultimately responsibility, no excuses.