This is 100% correct. I also know a fair number entrepreneurs who engage (or have engaged) in exactly what you describe. Also, it's a short and murky step from many of the "naughty" stories that are lauded in entrepreneur lore, to outright fraud. Too often, we make post hoc rationalizations for unethical behavior, based on outcome.
It's a huge dilemma if you want to behave ethically, but you're competing with lots of people who don't have that limitation.
Staying vigilant against the normalization of deviance[1] is difficult even in ideal situations. Choosing to normalize deviance as a business strategy is practically guaranteed to rapidly accelerate deviations from acceptable behavior.
In any system - including every business - resilience and safety means fixing small problems before they grow into bigger, more damaging problems[2].
> rationalizations for unethical behavior
Often, it doesn't even need to be rationalized. When deviant behavior is slowly normalized in small steps, the human mind tends to only see the "small, insignificant problems", and often skips[3] over big changes that should be "obvious".
[1] https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Professionalism/Diane_Vaughan_...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGLYEDpNu60
[3] https://www.cse.iitk.ac.in/users/se367/10/presentation_local...
First you shade the truth slightly. You're uncomfortable at first, but the line seems to work, so you try it again. You use it another 10 times and you start to believe it.
And then you shade the truth a little more. After the hundredth pitch, you're a fabulist, and you barely noticed.
I was sympathetic to the Theranos side of things until I learned they actually submitted fraudulent test data. That was the point where it became clear to me they were not confused as to where to draw some line. They were being willfully deceptive. Deception like that doesn't grow out of confusion. It grows out of clarity that you are selling BS.
> By doing this you avoid the inefficiency of the whole "we aren't sure you can do this" discussion which helps no one.
Pretty sure that it would help investors differentiate between those who can actually make it, and those merely good at faking it and making observable metrics go up ... especially if the ones actually capable of making the <big thing> don't make the metrics go up quite as high as the ones putting their effort into faking it.
And like another commenter said, that difference might well be worth billions.
This thread is the first time I've heard it applied seriously as to encourage lying and fraud.
Another similar common saying is "dress for the job you want, not the job you have." But sayings imply that you should act as if you've made it even if you haven't. You aren't "what you want to be," but you can present yourself in that way.
Finally, while you may have met many people who have turned "fake it" into lying and fraud, they are not the majority.
> Everyone should believe in themselves.
At least you admit here admit I'm right.
For example you lie about how your marketing efforts are reaching customers who are signing up in droves while you use mechanical turk and other techniques to make the observable metrics go up. At some point your visibility reaches the point where you actually are reaching your customers and so you can stop doing the shady stuff. By doing this you avoid the inefficiency of the whole "we aren't sure you can do this" discussion which helps no one.
On the outside, one clean narrative, traction and growth from day 1, now a multi-million (or billion) dollar business. Or as my Grandfather would say, all yummy sausage and no discussion at all about what not-yummy things are in there too.
Everyone should believe in themselves. That is just a given, if you don't (or can't) then you won't reach your expectation. There isn't any "faking" there as far as I can see (unless it is suppressing your own doubts about the effort).