Grow vs. Build as the Path to Greatness
I was recently reminded of a conversation I had with a VC and entrepreneur that I have a great deal of respect for. In a conversation about a year ago, we were discussing various paths to greatness -- or at least business success -- and spent a bit fo time talking about growing a successful, existing business versus launching an exciting new one with great potential.
Being generally of a high-risk, high-reward mindset, I set out to make the case for launching something new. Harvest the benefits of success and use it as a safety net to allow higher-risk activities that may well pay off down the road. Why not roll the dice when you're playing with the house's money?
My friend countered that building highly successful startups isn't an easy thing to be taken lightly. He agreed that the success of an existing company could be used to achieve greater things, but he argued that it makes more sense to leverage the existing business to grow it, rather than setting out on a new course.
His theory was that it would be easier to multiply current success than to replicate it.
A conversation I had yesterday with a colleague caused me to revisit this debate in my own mind. As someone who has been involved in the launch of more than a half dozen companies -- most of which have been successful (some more than others) and none of which have (yet) flopped -- my genetic makeup seems to lean toward Build.
But I can't kick the nagging feeling that my friend may be right and perhaps I should spend a little more time focusing on helping guide some of these companies to bigger and broader success rather than constantly searching for the proverbial Next Big Thing.
It's not an easy call. Other serial entrepreneurs seem to have the same bug. For instance, the Digg guys, Jay Adelson and Kevin Rose, have yet to even truly reap success with Digg yet area also working to build another startup, Revision3.
But I'm beginning to think I may want to try a different course and see where it leads.
Comments