False Dichotomies
Beyond binary choices
In the world of startups, we’re often presented with binary choices. “You’re either growing or dying,” they say. Or “Focus on product or sales.” These false dichotomies limit our thinking and potential. After a decade of working at startups of various sizes, I have come to recognize several of these misleading either/or situations.
Having a vision and iterating? Great founders do both. They paint a compelling picture of the future while adjusting their path based on real-world feedback. Being humble and opinionated? The best leaders I know hold strong views, weakly held. They’re confident in their beliefs but quick to update them when presented with new information.
Kind and ambitious? I’ve seen countless examples of leaders achieving remarkable things through empathy and collaboration. Giving autonomy and being in the weeds? Effective managers know when to step back and when to dive deep, providing guidance without stifling creativity.
Even seemingly opposed concepts like basic and applied research often intertwine in practice. Breakthroughs in fundamental science lead to practical applications, and real-world problems inspire new areas of study.
I have watched parents build successful startups, seen companies achieve both growth and profitability, and witnessed decisions that beautifully balance intuition and data. Passion and financial success can go hand in hand, and hard work has a funny way of making people luckier.
Recognizing these false dichotomies means embracing complexity and finding integration where others see opposition. So the next time you’re presented with an either/or choice in your startup journey, pause. Ask yourself: Is this really a dichotomy, or is there a more nuanced approach? You might just find that the answer lies not in choosing one side, but in creatively combining both.
Good post! Which is to say, I agree with it's premise ;-)
It's human nature to be problems solvers and speak to solutions (option A vs. option B) as a proxy for the problem the solution(s) solves for...without first getting explicit to and aligning about what the problem is first (ie: identify the goal without a solution) and then also identify what it means to solve that problem (achieve that goal) in a high quality way. What I like to call the "quality attributes" of all possible solutions.
ie: skipping this step pits options against each other in a dichotomous way.
Instead, we should never be debating solutions against each other, we should alway be refining possible options against the quality attributes which themselves get better refined as we consider many ideas as options. This avoids locking into an A vs. B argument and instead focuses on authoring an option "C" that is better than any prior A's or B's considered.