Starting a company looks like an act of radical openness to change.
You leave the predictable job. You reject the conventional path. You choose uncertainty over stability and build something that does not exist yet.
Founders, from the outside, look unusually comfortable with change.
Then something strange happens.
Months later, the same person who overturned their life to start a company can become deeply resistant to changing the product, switching markets, abandoning a business model, or admitting that the original idea simply does not work.
The founder who embraced change to create the company becomes surprisingly conservative about changing the company.
There is a good psychological reason for this.
A startup begins as a hypothesis.
Then you build it.
And once you build something, it becomes something you can lose.
A startup creates its own status quo
Humans do not evaluate every decision from zero.
Once something becomes the current state, we tend to treat it differently from an equally plausible alternative.
Samuelson and Zeckhauser called this status quo bias. Across experiments and real-world decisions, people were disproportionately likely to keep an option when it was presented as the existing state (Samuelson & Zeckhauser, 1988).
For founders, this creates an important asymmetry.
Before you build something, there is no status quo.
After six months of work, there is.
Imagine two startup ideas, A and B.
Before building either, choosing between them may be relatively easy.
Now choose A.
Spend eight months building it. Hire people. Raise money around it. Acquire users. Tell investors why the market is enormous.
Then evidence begins suggesting that B—or something completely different—is a better opportunity.
Economically, the question should be:
Given everything I know today, which path has the highest expected future value?
Psychologically, the choice has changed.
It is now:
keep what I have
versus
give up what I have for something uncertain.
Prospect theory, developed by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, showed that people evaluate outcomes relative to reference points and that losses relative to those reference points can carry different psychological weight from gains (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979).
The popular claim that losses always hurt “twice as much” as equivalent gains is too simplistic to treat as a universal rule.
The important point is simpler:
Once something becomes part of your current state, losing it is psychologically different from never having had it.
For a founder, yesterday’s experiment can quietly become today’s possession.
Ownership changes the question
A related phenomenon is the endowment effect.
In classic experiments, Kahneman, Knetsch and Thaler gave some participants objects such as coffee mugs. People who owned the objects subsequently tended to demand more to give them up than others were willing to pay to acquire them (Kahneman, Knetsch & Thaler, 1990).
A founder does not merely own an idea.
Over time, they become responsible for defending it—to employees, investors and themselves.
Eventually, the question can shift from:
Is this working?
to:
Was I right?
That transition matters.
A startup idea is supposed to be a hypothesis.
Identity can turn the hypothesis into something that needs defending.
Some of the best companies only appear after the founders abandon what they originally set out to build
Instagram began as Burbn, a broader mobile app built around location check-ins, plans and social features.
Its founders noticed that users were disproportionately interested in one part of the product: sharing photos.
They stripped much of Burbn away and rebuilt around that behavior.
The interesting part is not simply that Instagram pivoted.
A decision like that requires looking at something you deliberately designed, spent months building and repeatedly explained to other people—and accepting that user behavior may be telling you something more important than your original thesis.
The code may be reusable. Your certainty is not.
Sunk costs make this worse
Now add escalation of commitment.
Resources already spent cannot be recovered. They should not determine which future option creates the most value.
Humans routinely struggle with this.
Barry Staw’s research showed how people can continue committing resources to a chosen course of action after receiving negative feedback, particularly when they feel responsible for the original decision (Staw, 1976; 1981).
The startup version sounds perfectly reasonable:
“We’ve already spent nine months building this.”
But those nine months are gone under either decision.
The useful question is:
What would we choose to do with the next nine months if we were starting today?
Continuing has one psychological advantage.
It preserves the possibility that you were right all along.
Stopping crystallizes the loss.
That can keep capital, engineering time and reputation flowing into a hypothesis after the evidence supporting it has weakened.
Persistence and rationality begin to look dangerously similar.
The company can become part of the founder
These mechanisms can become particularly powerful because entrepreneurship is often tied to identity.
Research on founder role identity suggests that becoming a founder can become part of a person’s self-concept and influence entrepreneurial persistence (Hoang & Gimeno, 2010).
This makes some forms of updating emotionally expensive.
Changing pricing is one thing.
Abandoning the central thesis around which you recruited people, raised money and constructed a professional identity is another.
An investor might say:
“I don’t think this market is large enough.”
The analytical message is:
New information about market size.
But the founder may experience:
The thing I believed in, sacrificed for and publicly defended might have been wrong.
At that point, the founder is not updating only a business model.
They may feel that they are updating themselves.
What about first-time founders?
This is where the evidence becomes less direct.
There is no established scientific rule that first-time founders are categorically worse at pivoting than repeat founders.
But entrepreneurial experience does appear to influence how people recognize opportunities, assess uncertainty and interpret failure.
Research by Ucbasaran and colleagues found that prior entrepreneurial experience can affect opportunity identification and the way entrepreneurs process subsequent opportunities. Other work from the same research stream suggests that experiencing business failure can alter comparative optimism, although not uniformly across all repeat entrepreneurs (Ucbasaran et al., 2009; 2010).
That makes a narrower hypothesis plausible:
A first-time founder may have fewer reference points showing that being wrong is survivable.
A repeat founder may already have watched customers reject something they loved, changed direction, shut down a company, or discovered that an incorrect thesis does not imply an incompetent founder.
So the same event can carry a different meaning.
A first-time founder may experience:
The product is failing.
as:
I am failing.
A more experienced founder may be better able to interpret it as:
This hypothesis failed.
But experience alone does not solve the problem.
A founder can fail and conclude:
The investors were wrong.
The market was stupid.
The timing was bad.
Or:
My model of reality was wrong.
Experience and learning are not the same thing.
Perhaps the advantage of the best repeat founders is not simply that they have failed before.
It is that they have learned how survivable being wrong actually is.
The paradox: startups require the trait that can later hurt them
Founders need conviction.
Early startups exist before the evidence is complete. If founders abandoned their ideas every time intelligent people disagreed with them, many companies would never survive their first year.
So stubbornness is not automatically irrational.
Neither is optimism.
Neither is unusually high confidence.
The problem is knowing when conviction has stopped being useful.
Before the company:
“Everyone thinks this won’t work. I’ll prove them wrong.”
That belief may be necessary.
After eighteen months of poor retention:
“Everyone thinks this won’t work. I’ll prove them wrong.”
The same sentence can destroy the company.
This may be one of the hardest founder skills:
When should disagreement strengthen your conviction, and when should evidence weaken it?
Starting a company rewards conviction.
Running one requires knowing which convictions are disposable.
The revolutionary becomes the incumbent
There is an irony here.
Entrepreneurs define themselves by rejecting the status quo.
Then they create one.
Their product becomes the existing product.
Their market becomes the existing market.
Their strategy becomes the existing strategy.
Their story becomes the existing story.
The person who once said, “Everyone else is doing it wrong,” eventually has something of their own to protect.
The revolutionary becomes the incumbent inside their own company.
That is the founder status-quo paradox.
A major pivot can threaten the product you built, the expertise you accumulated, the story you told investors, the future you imagined, and sometimes part of your identity.
No wonder founders sometimes wait for overwhelming evidence before changing direction.
The problem is that startups often die before the evidence becomes overwhelming.
The solution is not “be less emotional”
Telling founders to remove emotion from decisions is useless.
A better approach is to build systems that assume humans become attached to their own decisions.
Consider an early-stage startup.
The founder:
- creates the hypothesis,
- becomes emotionally invested in it,
- chooses the metrics,
- interprets the results,
- and decides whether the hypothesis deserves more resources.
That is an extraordinary conflict of interest.
The solution is not perfect rationality.
It is decision architecture.
Define death before birth
Before running an important experiment, decide what result would cause you to reject the hypothesis.
For example:
If fewer than 15% of activated users return after four weeks once we reach 500 qualified users, we reconsider the core use case.
The exact threshold matters less than setting it before seeing the result.
Your relatively detached past self creates a constraint for your emotionally invested future self.
Separate the mission from the implementation
Be stubborn about the problem, not necessarily the solution.
Instead of:
We are building an AI accounting copilot.
define the deeper commitment:
We want to dramatically reduce the human labor required to close the books.
Now killing the copilot is not abandoning the mission.
It may be protecting it.
Ask the zero-history question
Periodically ask:
If I did not already own this company, codebase or strategy—and knew everything I know today—would I choose to start it now?
Imagine another founder showed you the company today.
Would you invest?
Would you join?
Would you build exactly this product?
If the answer is no, “but we’ve already built so much” is not a strong argument.
Make disconfirmation prestigious
Startup cultures celebrate people who prove ambitious ideas right.
They should also celebrate people who kill expensive ideas early.
If an engineer spends three weeks demonstrating that a feature the CEO strongly believes in does not improve retention, those three weeks were not necessarily wasted.
They may have saved six months.
“I proved our hypothesis wrong” should sometimes be one of the highest-status sentences in a startup.
The best founders may not fear failure less
They may fear a different kind of failure more.
They may fear spending three years defending an idea reality rejected after six months.
They may fear confusing persistence with truth.
They may fear becoming incapable of updating the company they created.
That suggests a different definition of entrepreneurial courage.
Courage is not only continuing when everyone tells you to stop.
Sometimes courage is being able to say:
I was wrong. The company does not have to be.
Human beings prefer existing states, value things differently after acquiring them, become influenced by previous investments and construct identities around important commitments.
A startup concentrates all of those tendencies inside an environment where yesterday’s correct answer can become tomorrow’s fatal mistake.
The challenge is not learning how to embrace change once.
Every founder already did that when they started.
The challenge is remaining psychologically capable of destroying your own status quo after you become the person who created it.
References
Hoang, H., & Gimeno, J. (2010). Becoming a founder: How founder role identity affects entrepreneurial transitions and persistence in founding. Journal of Business Venturing.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica.
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty.
Staw, B. M. (1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance.
Staw, B. M. (1981). The escalation of commitment to a course of action. Academy of Management Review.
Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., Wright, M., & Flores, M. (2009). The nature of entrepreneurial experience, business failure and comparative optimism. Journal of Business Venturing.
Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2010). The extent and nature of opportunity identification by experienced entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing.
Top comments (0)