The Persistence Test: Why Sam Purposely Ignores Your LinkedIn Message
- Albert Schiller
- Jun 25
- 3 min read
My NoSmalltalk session with Sam Baisla
In the world of professional networking, an unanswered message is a common, if frustrating, experience. We craft the perfect outreach, send it to a person of influence, and are met with silence. We assume they are too busy, or our message was not compelling enough. But what if that silence is not an oversight? What if it is a deliberate, philosophical test? Sam Baisla, an entrepreneur and investor who has built and mentored numerous startups, employs exactly this unconventional method. His approach, while unconventional, underscores the importance of persistence in the face of silence. It's a reminder that our ability to push through and follow up, even when met with silence, is a crucial trait for success in the entrepreneurial world.
His rationale is built on a hard-earned truth that cuts through the glamour of entrepreneurship. "What I'm testing is that if you do not have the will, the hunger, the persistence to follow up on anything, you will never make it in the entrepreneurial world". For Sam, the perfect idea, the flawless pitch deck, and the prestigious education are all secondary to this core quality. Why? Because the reality of building a business is that "everything literally. Everything takes longer, much longer than you expect, and it is going to be much, much harder than you initially expect". The initial idea will almost certainly change; "pivots will happen". The financial projections will be wrong; he quotes a former boss, "If life were an Excel sheet, it would have been very, very easy. The problem is, life is not an Excel sheet." In the face of this inevitable friction, a brilliant but easily discouraged founder will fail. A persistent one, however, will adapt and endure, transforming challenges into opportunities.
This test is not merely about gauging stubbornness; it is about a deeper quality. Persistence, in his view, is the engine of discovery. He uses the aphorism, "the devil lies in details, they say right, so does God. Good things lie in detail. Bad things lie in details, and the details are only found out when you're persistent enough". This is a statement on the nature of building anything worthwhile. It suggests that both catastrophic failure and profound breakthrough are hidden beneath the surface of a problem. A founder who lacks persistence will only ever engage with the superficial aspects of their business. They will never dig deep enough to find the critical flaw that will sink their company, nor will they find the unique insight that will allow it to succeed. Persistence, therefore, is not just the act of following up; it is the character trait required to do the deep, difficult work of discovery, revealing hidden opportunities and insights.
Of course, there is an ethical tension to this method. Is it a fair test, or a power play? From one perspective, it is a gatekeeping exercise. From Sam's perspective, however, it is a pragmatic filter born from his own costly experience. He has learned that investing in an idea without first verifying the persistence of the founder is a recipe for failure. "What I underestimated earlier," he reflects, "was that for this possibility that my mind perceives to become a reality, these people have to work in a certain way, and they... They generally don't". His test, therefore, is an attempt to align the reality of a founder's character with the potential of their idea. It is a sharp, almost brutal, departure from the standard advice on polite networking. Still, it suggests that in the world of building something from nothing, the ability to endure silence and respectfully push through is the first and most critical skill a founder must demonstrate.
5 Lessons I Learned from this Encounter:
Open Questions for Discussion
Sam Baisla uses a "persistence test" that many might find unconventional or even rude. In a world of digital noise, is this a fair and effective filter, or does it risk alienating potential founders who operate under different, more traditional codes of professional courtesy?
If, as Sam argues, persistence is more important than the initial idea, how should early-stage education and mentorship for young entrepreneurs be restructured to build this character trait, rather than just focusing on skills like pitch deck creation and financial modeling?
The "persistence test" may feel harsh, but in a world saturated with noise and low-effort outreach, it serves as a reality check. In startups, polite deference doesn't move mountains, consistent follow-up does. That said, fairness depends on context. If the test is used thoughtfully, it filters for grit. If used blindly, it might miss thoughtful founders who value respect over repetition. Perhaps the real key lies in clarity, setting expectations early can make the test feel more like a rite of passage than a cold shoulder.