Skip to navigationSkip to content
Close
The Era of “Move Fast and Break Things” Is Over

The Era of “Move Fast and Break Things” Is Over

Read more on Harvard Business Review

Contributions

  • Clever title, but I am not convinced the era of “move fast and break things” is really over yet. Early startups and innovative companies will continue to use the approach of “fail fast, fail forward” to set the pace against competition. However, with more awareness on the social and ethical impact emerging

    Clever title, but I am not convinced the era of “move fast and break things” is really over yet. Early startups and innovative companies will continue to use the approach of “fail fast, fail forward” to set the pace against competition. However, with more awareness on the social and ethical impact emerging technologies and business models have, leaders must realize the immense power they have to make the right decisions. Policies and Regulations will also need to catch up.

  • This piece by Taneja (General Catalyst) is a new addition to critiques of the action-biased entrepreneurship and innovation culture that has been widely adopted. This is a topic I’ve been thinking about for some time, and I like the direction of the questions suggested. However, there may be a challenge

    This piece by Taneja (General Catalyst) is a new addition to critiques of the action-biased entrepreneurship and innovation culture that has been widely adopted. This is a topic I’ve been thinking about for some time, and I like the direction of the questions suggested. However, there may be a challenge with adverse selection (or adverse avoidance); that is, the people who need to think this way may be the least inclined to do so. Some experts think startups in China have an advantage because there is less, rather than more, thinking about consequences ex ante. I’m strongly on the side of reflection, then action. This become even more important as systems become larger and the number of interaction is not easily mappable. Complex systems (like our world now) require thought before intervention.

  • Apologies, but it ain’t over, sorry. It’s only beginning.

    Speed of change is not slowing down. It’s only that we’re belatedly coming to recognize the risks inherent in moving fast.

    The competitive environment won’t allow businesses to slow down. Dysfunctional government and weakened global

    institutions

    Apologies, but it ain’t over, sorry. It’s only beginning.

    Speed of change is not slowing down. It’s only that we’re belatedly coming to recognize the risks inherent in moving fast.

    The competitive environment won’t allow businesses to slow down. Dysfunctional government and weakened global

    institutions limit the likelihood and impact of regulatory efforts. Those who want to emphasize the “virtuous” are playing catch up.

    For all the hating on Facebook, it remains the touchstone that others aspire to emulate (before its stumbles, of course). And emulating Facebook means embracing constant disruption, with the belief that you can improve your weaknesses down the road. Hope outweighs fear.

    “Move deliberately and fix things”: this is a mantra that I wish had enough emotional and cultural momentum to reframe business activity. While there are pockets of adherents, I just don’t see it yet. The near-term still rules the day.

    We’ve got a long way to go, and a lot of work to do, to truly grow up in an era where all the old rules have vanished.

  • We can only hope.

    Hemant Taneja is talking about Move Fast and Break Things as a philosophy in venture. He is in a position to know.

    If the industry’s reckless approach to artificial intelligence and the internet of things, as well as Reid Hoffman’s horrible decisions to provide capital to political

    We can only hope.

    Hemant Taneja is talking about Move Fast and Break Things as a philosophy in venture. He is in a position to know.

    If the industry’s reckless approach to artificial intelligence and the internet of things, as well as Reid Hoffman’s horrible decisions to provide capital to political operatives who spread disinformation are any indication, there are many dangerous forms of Move Fast and Break things that should still worry us.

  • The Temptation is always been to build Solutions and then look for a problem that they solve. This is the opposite of sound u x methodology. When you first have to develop the empathy to understand who the users are, you are much more likely to be aware of the problems they are trying to solve. If you

    The Temptation is always been to build Solutions and then look for a problem that they solve. This is the opposite of sound u x methodology. When you first have to develop the empathy to understand who the users are, you are much more likely to be aware of the problems they are trying to solve. If you can do that, you can bring in the expertise to help them do it in a more efficient and practical way. Rushing in to build things to make the executives blush is a terrible business model. Moving fast and breaking things is marketing speak for incompetent product management.

  • The section on regulation and tech in here is exactly right. Very consistent with our experiences working with General Catalyst.

  • It’s a complex balance. Hard to plan innovation. Yet hard to rebuild democracy and normal human interactions. I’m for moving a little slower and breaking a few less less things, but not by too much.

  • Healthier attitude and hopefully one that spreads. The vast majority of VCs and entrepreneurs are either dismissive, ignorant or downright arrogant as to the skill set, role and legacy of regulators. Regulators think in long time horizons and they have a different mindset as they are balancing a much

    Healthier attitude and hopefully one that spreads. The vast majority of VCs and entrepreneurs are either dismissive, ignorant or downright arrogant as to the skill set, role and legacy of regulators. Regulators think in long time horizons and they have a different mindset as they are balancing a much broader set of constituents. VCs and entrepreneurs play to win. Regulators play not to lose.

  • It personally bothers me as a former VC (and in general) that the MFBT methodology was so often rampant In Silicon Valley and beyond. While Taneja is one of the smarter and forward thinking investors out there, not all individual investors may not always represent the thinking of the fund.

    This is

    It personally bothers me as a former VC (and in general) that the MFBT methodology was so often rampant In Silicon Valley and beyond. While Taneja is one of the smarter and forward thinking investors out there, not all individual investors may not always represent the thinking of the fund.

    This is a general point btw, not towards any specific fund.

    The questions that Taneja ask though here are absolutely refreshing.

  • Taneja correctly points out that a fast-fail ethos is no longer en vogue when companies must now also generate social capital. We found in our NYU survey with Corporate Affairs Officers of FORTUNE 2K firms of a greater urgency to speak out quickly on social issues, where 68% cited “newfound pressure

    Taneja correctly points out that a fast-fail ethos is no longer en vogue when companies must now also generate social capital. We found in our NYU survey with Corporate Affairs Officers of FORTUNE 2K firms of a greater urgency to speak out quickly on social issues, where 68% cited “newfound pressure by employees” and only 18% said the downside is ‘we’d have to apologize if we got it wrong”. The need for speed it seems is shifting toward social accountability.

  • It occurred to me that these are also fantastic questions to ask companies/org when you’re considering working for them.

  • Money is no longer the only currency. ‘Purpose’ is a currency much stronger amongst the next generation.

  • Noticing many startup have the “virtuous” objective established along the way or even at later stage this cause less authenticity and perceived as trend follower. It should be the premeditated even before the business or growth plan started. The virtuous principle should be the epicentral and linchpin of the business.

  • I'm not sure that a moral approach is viable. Even if, it could be demonstrared to have superior long term viability, high growth drives stock value and stock is an indicator investors use to ditermine a company's attractiveness. As things are, a reckless and high growth model will generate more capital

    I'm not sure that a moral approach is viable. Even if, it could be demonstrared to have superior long term viability, high growth drives stock value and stock is an indicator investors use to ditermine a company's attractiveness. As things are, a reckless and high growth model will generate more capital than one predicated on responsible ethics.

  • “Move fast and break things” is a cliche way of framing the lean startup method, by Eric Ries.

    This is how it works:

    1.) Create hypothesis

    2.) Set up an experimental minimum viable product to test it

    3.) Use results to revise hypothesis until you create a solid thesis

    When you’re building a product

    “Move fast and break things” is a cliche way of framing the lean startup method, by Eric Ries.

    This is how it works:

    1.) Create hypothesis

    2.) Set up an experimental minimum viable product to test it

    3.) Use results to revise hypothesis until you create a solid thesis

    When you’re building a product, you can’t afford to build everything upfront, that’s why they call it bootstrapping.

    Instead build a prototype or minimum viable product to test if your initial assumption is right.

    This method is also referred to as iterative design, fail until you win, and yes, the scientific method.

    I wish more industries used this method, not less. If you’re politician and you have a political idea, test it by prototyping a white paper and sharing it publicly to see if it resonates. If you’re a filmmaker and you have an idea for a film, make a short prototype clip of it and share it online to see if it resonates.

  • Optimistic pie in the sky? The article posits Jedis -- but I predict Siths.

  • Not in my books it’s not...

  • One can only hope.

  • Can’t wait to answer these questions for my own business.