Value of Failure Over Flawless Resumes | Generated by AI
Question: Why is hiring founders or engineers who have experienced spectacular failures (bankrupt startups, cancelled projects, etc.) often more valuable than hiring someone with a flawless resume from Google or similar big-tech companies?
Answer:
People who have lived through big, visible failures—and can articulate what went wrong without defensiveness—tend to bring several rare and high-leverage traits that “perfect-record” candidates usually lack:
-
Real risk calibration
They’ve personally felt the stomach-drop of burning millions of dollars or watching a 200-person team get laid off overnight. This makes their judgment about which risks are worth taking (and which are suicidal) dramatically sharper than someone whose biggest downside was a failed A/B test at FAANG. -
Pattern recognition for doom
They’ve seen the exact sequence of small, innocent-looking decisions that snowball into catastrophe: premature scaling, ignoring unit economics, founder fights disguised as “strategic disagreements,” engineering hubris, etc. That muscle memory is almost impossible to teach in a classroom or during 5 safe years at a big company. -
** antifragile mindset**
Having already “died” once, they no longer have career fragility. They’ll push back on bad ideas, ship ugly but working code if needed, and won’t optimize for resume-building over company survival. -
Higher ceiling on ownership
Ex-founders especially have run payroll when the bank balance was $37k, negotiated with angry investors, and fired friends. That breadth of scar tissue is hard to replicate inside even the most “entrepreneurial” big-tech org. -
Credibility under fire
When the current startup hits its inevitable near-death moment (and it will), employees trust someone who has already navigated bankruptcy or a failed acquisition more than someone whose hardest day was a re-org. -
Humility + urgency combo
A spectacular failure that they can discuss intelligently usually destroys arrogance while preserving ambition. You get someone who moves fast, asks dumb questions early, and doesn’t need to be the smartest person in the room—because they already learned the hard way that being “smart” isn’t enough.
In short: a flawless Google/Facebook/Apple tenure often selects for people who are great at climbing greased poles inside mature systems. A public failure + intelligent postmortem selects for people who know how to build the pole from scratch in a hurricane—and not fall off when it breaks.
The best teams are usually a mix, but if you can only pick one archetype for the early/core team, the battle-scarred survivor is almost always the higher-upside bet.