Slashdot Mirror
Depression: The Secret Struggle Startup Founders Won't Talk About
mattydread23 writes: In May, Cambrian Genomics CEO Austen Heinz committed suicide. The news stunned friends and family, and sparked a conversation about the growing problem of depression among startup founders. Some estimates say 30% of startup founders suffer from depression, but many are reluctant to talk about their struggle for fear of alienating investors and employees. This feature by Business Insider includes conversations with a friend of Heinz, plus many investors and other startup founders who are starting to talk about the problem and figure out how to make things better.
Why talk about it? We're busy being optimistic. One must be very optimistic to be a startup (any business pretty much) or a farmer. The rest get 9-to-5 jobs.
Cambrian Genomics
...was he depressed that making dinosaurs was harder than he'd been lead to believe?
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
The culture of Silicon Valley and California in general is to sound positive all the time and avoid the negative -- people would much rather say nothing or offer platitudes than say "no". This forms part of the problem leading to depression -- everyone is "fake" and say things for political reasons, constantly on social networking talking up their accomplishments and that of their company. Of course, most of it is smoke and mirrors. Also the tech scene can be very pretentious and it takes a lot to "keep up with the Joneses" and stay in the social circles they prize. It becomes too much for many and they become depressed and fade away, replaced at their companies by the VC board. And some willing 20-something then comes and tries to fill their shoes and the cycle repeats.
No one wants to hire a depressed person. No one wants to go on dates with a depressed person (well, at least not many people -- negative/depressed dating site profiles don't get many replies). So, they conceal it until they break with full knowledge that when they break, they'll simply be replaced or their company will simply fail.
>Financially.
Correct. Clinical depression does not give a crap about how much money you have in the bank, though not having to worry about being homeless is a plus.
Seriously, if you have enough cash and connections to even think about starting a company, or even doing one of these new-fangled "startups", then you're better off than 95% of the country and better of than 99% of the world.
So what? You still have a problem to deal with. Doesn't matter if you're fortunate or driven or whatever to be in the position with the skill-set to drive a startup.
In serious circles (C-level employees, attorneys, doctors, academic faculty, anyone with a security clearance) psychological treatment is still heavily stigmatized. That's dumb. Psychological treatment should just be a fact of life--someone's getting treatment, that should be fine. If it's not, you encourage them not to seek treatment, in which case you have people with *untreated* psychological problems in positions of power.
If you have any pull in your org, you should be advocating for making these things okay. Not as a top priority, but as a significant one.
Depression? Who has time for that?! I've got customers out the door, tax forms to do, end of month accounting, interviews. You'll have to schedule depression with my secretary. Mornings are kinda tight for me though.
Oh bull. Therapy is a throw away thing today. The stigmata evaporated along about the '80s.
http://www.med.navy.mil/sites/nmcsd/nccosc/healthProfessionalsV2/reports/Documents/Stigma%20White%20Paper.pdf from the Navy says seeking mental health treatment is still heavily stigmatized in the military / clearance world and the American Psychological Association agrees with them http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/06/stigma-war.aspx
Also 7% being depressed in general population is definitely an underestimate. Till Obamacare came along some 40 million Americans had no access to healthcare. (Now that number is believed to be 25 million). Among the rest mental health screening is not covered for most of the lower end plans. Further given the taboo associated with mental illness even those with access do not get checked for depression. It is possible I myself would be diagnosed with depression, if I give the shrinks half a chance. Tech founders typically have enough resources to make it to college. They would get tested more than general population.
I think depression is more prevalent than assumed. And logically there are lots of reasons why most people, young ones more than others, should be depressed.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
You only know about the small percentage of startups that succeed. Most fail within a year. The failure rate is 80% within 18 months, by some estimates. Privileged? Those that succeed may have better backing, or just a better idea, and those founders usually go on to do well for themselves. But let's not forget the risks and pitfalls they had to navigate to get there.
What percentage of people who begin startups have a history of depression?
I know that some years ago a doctor quizzed me about depression.
Me "Well... yes, sometimes" "Isn't that normal?"
GP "It's not healthy" "Do you ever feel sad about events outside of your control?"
Me "For instance?"
GP. "Do events in other countries ever make you feel sad?"
Me "Yes" "Seems normal to me that knowing other people are suffering doesn't make me happy"
The GP then tried to prescribe me Xanax - which just made me feel depressed (no - I never took Xanax). So I have a history of depression (there's more than that incident - I do have "black days" where I want to stay in bed and avoid the world). Whether that's serious or normal doesn't change the fact that I've started a number of successful new businesses, and as part of the process I've often neglected my diet, been extremely stressed, and suffered from extreme lack of sleep. Others with similar business history report the same thing - periods of optimism, energy and the feeling that the brain (and the mouth) are at their optimum, followed by periods when I get words wrong, struggle to get out of bed, feel mentally sluggish, and have difficulty believing things will "go well".
Clearly I haven't committed suicide, but was it the startups that caused the "depression" - or the "side-effects" of "depression" ("extreme" optimism and "energy") that "impelled" the desire to startup a new business venture?
My "suspicion" is that starting any new business involves mixed emotions. Losses loom larger than gains - and despite initial optimism there will always be periods of doubt. It kind of balances out, no ups without downs.
Anything new involves risks - and to many the risks appear larger as the involvement shifts from dipping your toes to taking a plunge. Terms like "bi-polar" and "manic" get bandied about when describing people who are successful at taking risks but I've seen little to show that's a result of starting a new/novel venture. Perhaps I'm too depressed to look in the right places?
Note: after the first couple of experiences the process is much easier to deal with as you can look back on previous occasions when it felt like the sun would never shine again - and know that good things, while often hard to imagine - are just as likely outcomes as the bad things that are much easier to imagine. That seems normal to me.
Would you say a financially comfortable american with terminal cancer is 'better off' than 99% of the world? - Of course not. Same thing with depression, depression is not self pity, it is a mental illness that has fuck all to do with the size of your wallet. As Robin Williams demonstrated, sufferers are unable to endure living even when swimming in money.
I'm not having a go at you personally, most people who don't understand depression have your dismissive attitude. I suggest you try educating yourself on the subject because odds are you will encounter a loved one with depression at some point in your life and it's handy to know what to do after telling them to "cheer up" doesn't work.
As for TFA, I don't find it surprising that "start up" people have a high proportion of manic-depressives, the manic phase of the illness is characterized by extreme optimism.
Shameless plug for a good cause
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
It's a sad fact of our society that more money is equated with more "happiness" or well being.
When I don't have enough people time, I get depressed. And by people time, I mean close authentic relationships in person. Our society's demand that we work all the time is making us more miserable. Try to scale back? can't because employers demand more and more of our time. So it's the nose to the grindstone or unemployment. We can't have a balanced life anymore.
We as a society are consuming more booze and drugs and it's a symptom of our shallow all work and no play fill up the hole with stuff society.
Sermon over.
This isn't just about startups, this is across U.S. society—there is zero work-life balance.
Sure, every other company proclaims how great they are WRT work-life balance, but it's pure bullshit.
During hiring (for employees) and/or funding (for startups), if you give any evidence that you will ever put anything before the company (family, health, whatever, it doesn't matter) in ANY way, or ever draw a line in the sand about hours/commitment at ANY number, you are totally noncompetitive/nonfundable (they won't use these words) and won't be hired/be funded. If there is any evidence in your CV, online persona, or history that you have ever done any of these things, you won't be hired/funded.
Even after employment/funding, you have to keep this up. Sure, you may be asked (or even pressed) to "slow down," but it's superficial. The moment you do, positive evaluations/promotions/funding dries up; there is a perception that you're "not serious," "not committed," "not a good risk," or simply "not as capable/investment-worthy" as those *other* supermen/women that work 100+ hours a week (at least) and always put work first.
Yes, they want you to take a break, take care of yourself, and balance your life. But hey, if someone else delivers more value or growth more quickly... Well, they'd be nuts not to go with them instead, and hope you stay healthy in the meantime, all the best.
So, in the interest of your self/family/relationships you try to build a career that precisely demands that in order to keep it, you destroy your self/family/relationships. Depression is easy to fall into when your life will fall apart no matter what you do.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
His mistake was simple. He decided to be irreplaceable because he didn't think anyone could do as good a job as he could. You can't do that. That never, ever works out well for you.
Now, a startup founder is a really important person for their company, of course. However, even they need to work towards limiting their workload, at least eventually.
There's no point to building a startup if you end up dead or broken at the end of it. If you see it coming, then you need to act to fix it. If you go with the idea that you work or your startup fails, then when you break down, your startup will fail anyway. That or if you do make a successful startup, but break down because of making it successful, congratulations, you've just defined Pyrrhic victory for the startup scene. You'd probably have been better off as a wage slave at the end of it.
Some people are driven to try and succeed, and the journey can be as rewarding all by itself, even with failure at the end. But if you aren't someone who can enjoy, or at least regard the journey as a rewarding learning experience, you should not be founding a startup.
Privilege white people committing suicide? I'm playing my smallest violin in sympathy
1. Not all startup founders are 'white people' and not all of them are 'privileged' either
2. Most of the startup founders do not commit suicide
3. Stress level for startup founders - no matter what kind of startup - is high, but this is natural, as the journey of starting up a new company (in any industry) is a rocky road filled with a mix of excitement / trepidation / frustration
As for the percentage of the excitement versus that of trepidation versus that of frustration largely depends on
A. The regional / global industrial environment in which the startup is involved with
B. The structure of the startup
C. The corporate culture of the startup, ie, the attitude of the close-knit of people working in the startup
D. The personality type of the founder himself or herself
I personally have involved in quite a number of startups and every single one has their own perculiar 'pain of labor' - and for each of the 'pain of labor', if the founder sees it as a 'challenge' it would be tackled with zeal. However, if the same 'pain of labor' is seen as 'trouble' then the thing could become a protracted problem for the company
The above is based on my own experience
YMMV
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
I have experience since 2002 with 4 different Fortune 150 or less businesses, and not once seen anything like this.
I *have* seen people saying "I'm too busy" and working exactly 40 hours, but you can't justify hiring more people when you are getting 90% of the work done in 40 hours. Maybe if you have more than 10 people to cover a single role, but even large companies tend towards smaller teams, perhaps with more managers than are necessary. So you generally don't have enough work to justify a new hire.
I also know people who worked at other Fortune 500 or less companies, at least 10 with enough detail to be sure that they have not seen anything like what you describe.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I do think you're in the wrong job market if you think this is bullshit.
Someone else delivers more value or growth, that's a problem with either your skill set or their desire to burn out. And I would not want to hire someone who looks like they will be a burnout in 5 years.
Go job hunting now, and get out of whatever network you are in, because you sound trapped by your own ignorance.
I just canâ(TM)t BELIEVE the things that have gotten funding. Who âoeinvestsâ $5M in a luxury watch site? I thought there were just a lot of bad ideas out there, but I think there are a lot of unsophisticated investors too.
This is why it's depressing being in s startup. Let's say you've got a crack team of 4 co-founders and have not only come up with a good idea but built a product round it, sure it will get better in future but it works now. Let's say you're all grown-ups and actually considered the market before embarking on this and have found that yet there is a niche and a demand. Maybe you've even managed to sell a few units and get people interested, but now need money to grow.
So you go looking for invesment (well you maybe were all along) because you've just invested 4 person years for no pay.
And first you can't get any so you decide to look around at what is getting finded. And holy Jesus Christ on a moped what the ever living fuck who the damn hell ever though it was a good idea to fund those guys? So you have a product that's useful and there's still no competition and now the 25th selfie drone company, going into an already crowed area has just raised some insane amount. As has another facebook/uber wannabe clearly doomed for failure.
And then some moron of an "angel" comes along who decides that a 500% discount rate is what he wants so that if you ever do get VC funding, not only does he own the entire company, but he owns you, your childred and your children's children, your ever living soul and your pet hamster.
Meanwhile money is getting tight and you get back to pitching. Nada. But hey, Uber is now worth more than the combined annual revenue of the entire global taxi industry and then some.
Then these guys net $2,500,000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And now an app which does fucking NOTHING except send the message "yo" to people with the same app installed is valued at $3.3 per user? WHAT THE FUCK? You funded that and you won't fund me? Are you mad?
And that is, I believe, why it's depressing.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
30% is just about the average in the Western world - nothing special about this particular group in this regard. It's a severely under appreciated problem when you consider the immense cost in DALY or YLD.
World Health Organization (WHO) states that depression is the leading cause of disability as measured by Years Lived with Disability (YLDs) and the fourth leading contributor to the global burden of disease.
.: Semper Absurda
Stress. Could just be that 30% of people faced with high levels of stress react by sinking into depression. I know it happens to me.
From TFA:
A recent study by Dr. Michael Freeman, a clinical professor at UCSF and an entrepreneur as well, was one of the first of its kind to link higher rates of mental health issues to entrepreneurship.
Of the 242 entrepreneurs surveyed, 49% reported having a mental-health condition. Depression was the No. 1 reported condition among them and was present in 30% of all entrepreneurs, followed by ADHD (29%) and anxiety problems (27%). That's a much higher percentage than the US population at large, where only about 7% identify as depressed.
More surprising was the incidence of mental health in the families of entrepreneurs: 72% said they either had mental-health problems themselves or in their immediate family.
A founder who has no history of mental illness from a family with no history either "is the exception, not the rule," Freeman said.
Also, from the study mentioned:
http://www.michaelafreemanmd.c...
Little is known about mental health conditions among the families of entrepreneurs. Of some relevance, though, is the fact that previous research has shown that first and second-degree family members of bipolar probands are high achievers across several domains that are important for entrepreneurship. Higier and her colleagues found that when compared to bipolar probands and normal controls, the unaffected identical twins of people with bipolar disorder demonstrate superior cognitive and interpersonal traits that would seem highly important for entrepreneurship, including enhanced social ease, confidence, assertiveness, intelligence, verbal learning, verbal fluency, extraversion, sociability, optimism, and resilience [89].
Coryell et al. found that the first-degree relatives of bipolar probands, including relatives with bipolar spectrum conditions, had significantly higher educational and occupational achievement than the close family members of people with other mental health conditions [72]. Other studies conducted over the last 100 years have reached similar conclusions [73, 74, 76, 90-92].
Creativity and innovativeness are foundational aptitudes of entrepreneurs. The close family members of bipolar probands have been shown to have high levels of creativity [23, 68]. First-degree relatives of people with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, anorexia nervosa, and autism have been shown to be overrepresented in the scientific and artistic occupations [66]. Male relatives of people with schizophrenia were shown to be overrepresented in a listing of prominent people [93].
Also, ALSO, from the study:
Reviewed in conjunction with the results displayed Figure 1, 72% of the entrepreneurs in this sample either reported a personal mental health history (49%) or were asymptomatic yet reported a family mental health history (23%). By contrast, 48% of the comparison participants in this sample reported a personal mental health history (32%) or were asymptomatic yet reported a family mental health history (16%).
There IS also a PRETTY BIG issue with it being a self-reporting study and with the composition and the design of the control group.
Control was created by surveying "76 MBA student and faculty pool participants, and 149 psychology students", then mixing those participants with self-reported "entrepreneurs".
Then, out of the total sum of 335 participants (meaning that 110 were actually pooled from "actual entrepreneurs") - 93 participants were declared as control because they answered "no" to the following question: "Have you ever been self-employed, a business founder, or a business co-founder (including non-profit businesses)?"
There are more psych and MBA students (132) among the "entrepreneurs" then "actual entrepreneurs" (110).
So all those mental health numbers may be coming from self-diagnosing psych students.
Which would kinda explain the fact that HALF OF THE CONTROL HAS A HISTORY OF MENTAL ISSUES AS WELL.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Yup, that's usually what people who don't suffer from clinical depression usually say...."GET OVER IT". It's just purely academic isn't it? Because in the real world we can all just "retrain" our thought processes and mentally force our bodies to produce the normal chemical cocktail that will make us happy. You think you have knowledge and it seems so logical to you. "It works for me so why not them?"
But you are correct in some things you said. You can absolutely train your body and mind to correct day to day anxiety and depression. But for most people with clinical depression it's a constant battle. Training the brain and drugs only temporarily correct these problems and so it's a constant struggle to maintain a level of happiness that most people feel day to day.
So please stop talking like you have the answers. You clearly only understand the problem on a superficial level and spreading your poor understanding off as informed opinion only makes it worse for those of us who can't just follow your simple solutions.
tl;dr
I'm glad you found something that works for you. But regardless of all your babbel, you offer no room for sympathy and thus I offer no room for you or your ideas.