Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Two creators are not always better than one

mitsloan.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 101 posts

Re: Two creators are not always better than one

#61

Post by lbriner »

robterrin wrote: post #41

I'm a teaching assistant for a class called Entrepreneurial Finance at my alma mater, which always has a good draw of entrepreneur and investor guest speakers. One of the recent speakers was Kent Collier, CEO of Reorg ( https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/reorg-research#secti... ), an information service to the buy-side that focuses on arcane and opaque information, particularly bankruptcy. They are a smash hit t…

That works both ways. Sure, if someone has all they need to succeed, the distraction of a co-founder might be a problem. For the rest of us, we need the balance, challenge and questions of a peer so that we have to listen and justify decisions.

Questions around skills, again, depend on the scenario. I might be an engineer but I sell online and don't need "sales skills" so don't need a co-founder. In other companies, the need for certain skillsets which I don't have needs a co-founder who can give your business the bandwidth.

I can't honestly see that either way is always preferable - depends on the person, the company, the market etc.

Re: Two creators are not always better than one

#62

Post by ata_aman »

PaulHoule wrote: post #24
njarboe wrote: post #13

I think the reason Y-combinator and others like to see two or more founders is that at least those two people are willing to work with/for each other. It is a rough filtering mechanism, and probably a very useful one, especially if your philosophy is that technical people make great business founders. More honestly it is "Technical people can make great startup founders, but first filter on if they can recruit one ot…

I think it is affirmative action for non-technical cofounders if you ask me. The non-technical cofounders who become VCs want to support people who remind them of themselves in the past. This is why founder dating is like dating at a tech school. There are many non-technical cofounders who bring nothing to the table except the desire to make a huge amount of money. That is something to work with, but it is by no mean…

The only flow in the logic for me in the multi-founder scenario is that if the other person is non-technical, they are automatically considered sales etc... by default. So you can get anyone who is not technical and meet the model; regardless of their skills. It's harder to prove someone is not good at sales vs a technical person (more relevant in younger founders).

The only argument I can think of against what I just said is that the other person is not heads down building so they have more time to acquire those skills.

Re: Two creators are not always better than one

#63

Post by lbriner »

airocker wrote: post #35
trjordan wrote: post #12

Two founders are better than one when one of the key problems you will face is hiring. One founder hasn't proven they can recruit. Two founders have proved they can convince at least one other idiot to join them. This is important for VC businesses, where hiring quickly is the only way to grow. But it's not important for smaller businesses, where cash management matters more.

Is being able to recruit the most important trait? I think it is overall selling that matters. Why can selling potential not be demonstrated by other means? Playing with human relationships can come later.

If you sell well, the VCs want you to scale so yes, lots of time spent recruiting.

If you have a smaller business making enough money and don't want to scale and therefore don't need VC money - then selling is definitely the number one requirement.

Re: Two creators are not always better than one

#64

Post by lbriner »

dgudkov wrote: post #57

Besides rare exceptions (that do exist!), there is nothing a co-founder can give that you can't hire.

Apart from input and challenge that you have to listen to. That might sound like a bad thing but there are plenty of successful founders who would have gone off the rails early if they didn't have someone else asking, "do we really need to do that"?

Re: Two creators are not always better than one

#65

Post by pmichaud »

_hyn3 wrote: post #40
njarboe wrote: post #13

I think the reason Y-combinator and others like to see two or more founders is that at least those two people are willing to work with/for each other. It is a rough filtering mechanism, and probably a very useful one, especially if your philosophy is that technical people make great business founders. More honestly it is "Technical people can make great startup founders, but first filter on if they can recruit one ot…

I agree that this is a thing with VC's, but the claimed logic behind it is not credible. If you are able to recruit founders to work with each other, you didn't prove anything that couldn't be just as easily proven by recruiting a VC to invest in you. And if it's not sales/hype that we're trying to prove, but instead a technical review by a potential co-founder, then that's what technical due diligence is for. To me,…

> If you are able to recruit founders to work with each other, you didn't prove anything that couldn't be just as easily proven by recruiting a VC to invest in you.

Eh, I think this is spurious. The specific post you're replying to is about a signal that seed funders can use to predict if founders have what it takes.

Seed funders can't really use the signal of "did they get VC money?"

Also, technical proof of concept is definitely a positive signal, but is not at all sufficient to make a reasonable investment bet.

Re: Two creators are not always better than one

#66

Post by airocker »

icedchai wrote: post #49
airocker wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is being able to recruit the most important trait? I think it is overall selling that matters. Why can selling potential not be demonstrated by other means? Playing with human relationships can come later.

I'd argue that "recruiting" is a form of selling. Especially in the beginning, when you're selling the dream...

In the initial phase, we can only sell to people who trust us. Becoming a co-founder is a big commitment and a challenge to long-term relationships. Why can't it be something like, get five customers you know using your product/service. I have been through a bad co-founder divorce and I think it is bad advice that co-founder will increase your success chances. I think the mostly one co-founder gets a free(er) ride. Werner Vogels in his startup school lecture says "Have you seen a group with one head monkey and a leiutenant monkey?"

Re: Two creators are not always better than one

#67

Post by josephhurtado »

The most important part of the article is that is shatters the myth of having a co-founder to succeed. The stats don’t say that two founders are better than one, it fact is the opposite, more than one is WORSE.

So what would be my take-away; if you are thinking of pursuing a business, and have the energy, contacts and network to make it, go ahead. However if having help from a valuable co-founder who you trust is possible, then compromise, and get a helping hand. Otherwise is better to go it alone.

Re: Two creators are not always better than one

#69

Post by hyperpallium »

njarboe wrote: post #13

I think the reason Y-combinator and others like to see two or more founders is that at least those two people are willing to work with/for each other. It is a rough filtering mechanism, and probably a very useful one, especially if your philosophy is that technical people make great business founders. More honestly it is "Technical people can make great startup founders, but first filter on if they can recruit one ot…

I like this theory; though I think the division of labour is usually marketing/tech (quintessential example: Steve and Steve.)
Post reply on HN