Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of them? Really? What's funny is when the book was published, I remember someone telling me that I should have included more examples of failed startups in the manuscript. I remember answering them, "Oh, I have. We just don't know which ones yet." This is the difficulty of writing any kind of business book. There's just no way to use any company as an example to illustrate some principle without people misunderst…
That's fair but I felt you held up these companies and founders as these demigods running this well oiled operation and yet I remember looking up those companies and all quietly folded within a few years of your book coming out. My point is you were not able to demonstrate any correlation with your suggested methods with startup success. A company could do the exact opposite of what you recommend and be successful. O…
This project may take decades, and yet leaders need guidance and useful mental models in the meantime. So, to me, the much more useful data is the literally thousands of founders (and other leaders) who have reported that they have found the framework useful in their own lives and companies. They may all be deluded, of course, but at some point I think we have to acknowledge that _something_ useful is going on here.
In any event, I don't give it that much thought. If a new theory emerges that proves more useful, or if new research gives entrepreneurs new and better tools, I'd be delighted. My only loyalty is to the truth.