创业与商业hbr.org
研究显示：成功创业者的平均年龄是 45 岁
Research: The Average Age of a Successful Startup Founder Is 45
2018 — 2020，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
这篇 HBR 文章介绍一项研究：若以员工增长、销售增长或 IPO/收购退出等指标衡量成功，成功创业公司的创始人平均年龄约为45岁，而不是硅谷叙事中常见的二十多岁。文章据此讨论经验、执行力和资源在创业成功中的作用。
为什么经久不衰：它用统计数据挑战“年轻创始人才能成功”的刻板印象，同时引出成功定义与幂律分布的争论，因此多年后仍值得读。
HN 评论精选
中年创始人可能在创造力和精力上逊色，但经验和执行能力更强，而执行决定成败。
我做创业者17年，现在算“中年”。早年犯过很多错误，大概可归因于年轻自负；我也不懂怎么经营真正的企业，因为连在大公司工作的经验都很少，更别说制定接近“市场进入计划”的东西。如果今天重新创业，我可能没有23岁那种无忧无虑的创造力，也没有疯狂加班的精力；但执行层面的一切都会更好。而只要在合适时机有不错点子，执行就是一切。
ttul查看英文原文
I have been an entrepreneur for 17 years and am now “middle aged”. In my early years, I made many, many mistakes that could probably be pegged to youthful hubris. I also had no idea how to run a real business because I had scant experience even working for one let alone crafting anything approaching a “go to market plan”. If I were to start a new company today, I would probably lack the carefree creativity of a 23-year-old, not to mention the energy to work crazy hours. But everything about execution would be better, and as it happens, assuming you have a decent idea at the right time, execution is everything.
科技价值高度集中，顶级公司多由年轻创始人创办，平均值可能掩盖幂律分布。
这类研究常忽略幂律：科技业绝大部分价值由极少数公司创造。以下是2017年市值最高的五家科技公司及创始人年龄：苹果（乔布斯21、沃兹26）、Alphabet（拉里/谢尔盖约25）、微软（盖茨19、艾伦22）、亚马逊（贝索斯29）、Facebook（扎克伯格19）。
georgewsinger查看英文原文
These studies often ignore the power law. The vast majority of value generated in tech is powered by a tiny number of companies. Here are the five most valuable tech companies as of 2017 vs. the age of the founders: 1. Apple: $570.7B explained - Jobs: 21 - Woz: 26 2. Alphabet: $560B - Larry/Sergey: 25ish 3. Microsoft: $434B - Gates: 19 - Allen: 22 4. Amazon: $365B - Bezos: 29 5. Facebook: $354B - Zuckerberg: 19
人类统计会反过来影响行为，创始人不应被年龄统计束缚，其他因素更重要。
不能把关于人的统计当成力学实验里的轨迹概率。人处在“二级混沌系统”中，统计本身会影响未来结果。统计说你的年龄不适合做某件事？那就去做扰动统计的那个人。对投资者来说这些数据有趣，但性格、驱动力、毅力、人脉融资等因素可能更重要，创始人最好别被年龄统计吓住；高能动性的人不该让年龄阻止自己。
tw1010查看英文原文
You can't treat statistics about humans the same way you treat probabilities about trajectories in a mechanics experiment. People live in a level two chaotic system, which means that the existence of statistics can affect future outcome. Statistics say your age or race (or whatever) isn't optimal to do what you want to do (e.g. be a successful founder)? Screw that! Be the actor that wobbles future statistics, proving we're in a level two world! Force those statisticians to scratch their head when their models don't work out right! These statistics should certainly be interesting for investors, but there are so many more factors of the equation (like personality, drive, grit, access to capital through friends, etc) that are probably much more significant (even in a rigorous statistical sense) to the outcome of a company, that founders themselves are better off just ignoring it. And besides, a founder is a high agency individual, are you really going to let age (whether it be too old or too young) stop you?
研究对成功的定义与VC追求的超高回报不同，按巨额退出看结论可能不一样。
注意这类研究的“成功”定义：0-5年员工高增长、销售增长最快，或通过IPO/收购退出。VC看的不是这些，而是最大整体回报倍数；他们和媒体不在乎1-30倍回报，而多数退出可能就在这个区间。HBR若想解释VC为何押注年轻创始人，应看10亿美元退出或100倍以上回报的创始人年龄，并参考自家另一篇文章：数据集中独角兽创立平均年龄刚过31岁，中位数30岁。
AndrewKemendo查看英文原文
Important note about these studies: Success = high employee growth from year 0-5 OR fastest sales growth OR successfully exit through an IPO or acquisition VC isn't looking at those three factors above. They are looking at LARGEST overall return percentage. VC and the media don't care about 1-30x returns, which is likely where most of these exits are. HBR should go back and look at the ages of founders that have $1B exits or 100X+ returns on capital if they want to know "why some VCs persist in betting on young founders." They should likely just consult their colleagues on a different side of their website: "The average age at founding (a unicorn) in our dataset was just over 31, and the median was 30." https://hbr.org/2014/04/how-old-are-silicon-valleys-top-founders-heres-the-data
历次讨论
同类还值得读
微软已死（2007）
Microsoft is Dead (2007)
Paul Graham 2007 年的一篇短文，判断微软在互联网与创业竞争中已不再令人畏惧、失去影响力——所谓“死”并非字面倒闭。
创业与商业上首页 8 次 · 2007–2025paulgraham.comH&R Block 与 Intuit 游说反对简化报税（2017）
H&R Block and Intuit Lobbying Against Simpler Tax Filing (2017)
2017年ProPublica调查报道梳理了H&R Block和Intuit如何通过游说反对更简单的美国报税方式，尤其是政府预填税表和免费申报等改革。
创业与商业上首页 5 次 · 2017–2022propublica.org你本不该有老板
You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss (2008)
Paul Graham 2008 年的经典文章，论证人类在演化中习惯于小团体协作，而大公司的层级结构和老板制度是人为产物，对程序员尤其有害——因为编程的本质是创造新事物，而大公司…
创业与商业上首页 5 次 · 2008–2020paulgraham.com为什么要在经济糟糕时创业
Why to Start a Startup in a Bad Economy
Paul Graham 的经典短文，论证经济衰退并不是创业的障碍：真正决定成败的是创始人和产品，而非宏观环境；衰退期反而竞争更少、人才更易招、成本更低。
创业与商业上首页 5 次 · 2008–2022paulgraham.com做那些不可规模化的事
Do Things that Don't Scale
Paul Graham 2013 年的经典创业文章《Do Things that Don't Scale》。
创业与商业上首页 4 次 · 2013–2025paulgraham.com编辑精选