Start Everywhere

The traditional advice for tackling any large goal, project, or career move is to start at the beginning. We are told to make a linear plan, follow step one, and progress sequentially to step two. However, the most successful innovators, creators, and entrepreneurs rarely operate this way. Instead, they embrace a chaotic, non-linear approach: they start everywhere.

Starting everywhere means abandoning the constraint of perfect order. It means working on the middle, the end, and the beginning of a project all at the same time. While it sounds counterintuitive, this fragmented strategy is actually a highly efficient catalyst for rapid progress. The Paralysis of the “Right” First Step

The biggest threat to any new endeavor is momentum death. When you force yourself to find the perfect starting point, you invite analysis paralysis. You spend days, weeks, or months planning the ideal sequence, only to realize that your initial assumptions were wrong once you actually begin.

Linear thinking creates a bottleneck. If you get stuck on step one, the entire project stalls. By giving yourself permission to start anywhere—and consequently, everywhere—you eliminate the friction of the starting line. If you cannot figure out how to introduce your book, write the climax. If you do not know how to code the homepage of your app, build the settings menu. Action in any direction generates momentum, and momentum is the lifeblood of success.

Parallel Processing: How “Starting Everywhere” Speeds Up Progress

In computing, parallel processing increases speed by executing multiple operations simultaneously rather than waiting for one task to finish before starting the next. Human productivity works the same way. When you start everywhere, you engage in cognitive parallel processing.

Working on different parts of a project concurrently allows your brain to make unexpected connections. The breakthrough you have while working on “Phase 3” might suddenly solve the problem you were facing in “Phase 1.” By dipping your toes into multiple areas at once, you build a holistic understanding of the project much faster than someone moving through a rigid, paint-by-numbers sequence. De-Risking Failure Early

A linear approach backloads risk. If you follow a strict sequence, you might spend months perfecting the foundation of an idea, only to realize at the very end that the core premise does not work.

Starting everywhere forces you to test multiple touchpoints of your idea simultaneously. You are building the foundation while simultaneously testing the roof. This scattered approach exposes flaws, blind spots, and structural weaknesses early in the process. It allows you to pivot, iterate, or abandon unviable ideas before you have invested too much time and capital into a flawed, linear path. How to Implement the “Start Everywhere” Strategy

Embracing this mindset requires shifting from a mindset of perfection to a mindset of exploration. You can implement this strategy using three core practices:

Map the ecosystem: Break your goal or project down into its core components. Do not worry about how they connect yet; just list the pieces that need to exist.

Follow the energy: Look at your list and choose the component that excites you the most right now, regardless of its chronological order. Work on it until your energy dips, then jump to another piece.

Connect the dots later: Accept that your early work will look like a messy puzzle. Trust that as you build more pieces, the connective tissue between them will naturally reveal itself.

The obsession with perfect order is often just procrastination in disguise. Success does not reward the person with the neatest plan; it rewards the person who executes. Stop waiting for the perfect time, the perfect resource, or the perfect first step. Dive into the mess, start everywhere, and watch how quickly the pieces fall into place. If you would like to refine this piece, let me know:

What specific platform or audience is this for (e.g., LinkedIn, Medium, a personal blog)?

What desired tone do you prefer (e.g., more academic, conversational, punchy)?

Should we include real-world case studies of companies or people who used this method? I can easily tailor the article to match your exact goals.