My Y Combinator interview.

> I got an email from Paul Graham saying basically that being a single founder put me at a disadvantage, because two founders can talk each other out of bad ideas, but I appeared too stubborn. I’m not entirely sure what this means, as I was under the impression, from reading his essays, that Paul was against single founders because they might give up too easily, so a founder who sticks to his idea would be desirable.

Having worked both solo and with partners, I will never again run a business solo for an extended period of time. If the business is already profitable, I'll hire a competent GM-level person to help run it. If it isn't profitable enough to do that, then I'm going to spend a majority of my time recruiting someone for whom the company will be greater than the sum of its parts.

Having someone to talk to is huge. If they pick out a single one of your blindspots or bad points, that could make the business 20% more successful. Really, there's a long list of things that can go wrong in business. Tweaking and refining at any stage could easily give a 1%, 2%, 5% edge. Those stack up really fast.

Solo isn't so good. Partners are good. If profitable, you can hire some talented to take that role. If not profitable, I'd strongly encourage you to get over your... well, I was about to call it delusions of grandeur, but that isn't fair to say. For me, in the past I've fallen in love with my ideas, thought they were worth more than they were, and thought the execution would come fairly easily. I was delusional. Maybe you're not, but if you don't have money coming in and an obvious winner on your hands, you might rethink what the business is worth and go recruit someone. Have some sort of vesting or buyout provisions if it doesn't work and go get a cofounder.

I was the biggest pro-solo guy in the world previously, but I was mistaken. You got a high fever? Tough shit, it's just you running the business, make it work anyways. You ripped the cartilage in your knee and can't walk? Tough shit, hobble over the taxi stand, get a taxi to the bank, and limp/drag yourself in to do your business.

Having a team is good. If profitable, hire a GM-type, that'd work. If not strongly think about recruiting a cofounder.

Dropbox is AFAIK a one founder company. Go figure.

> I would love to read a blog post on hiring a GM-type. How? Whom? When? Why? How much? What responsibilities?

The best guy I know at this is a mentor of mine who runs one of the most profitable architectural/construction firms in the Middle East. He looks for people who can get things done on their own without too much guidance, always pays over-market rates for pay but makes the bulk of compensation based on net profit, and he primarily recruits people from bars where expats hang out. First thing he does when he reaches a new city is go to an English or Irish pub where the expats hang out, and gets lots of info there. He does lots of recruiting at bars, asking around for who knows who that'd be good at something. I'll ask him more next time I see him, and shoot you an email if I get something interesting and write it up.

Most of the people I've worked with I met and got to know beforehand... if possible, if you're a consumer-facing business, it would help to start building out a community around your business before looking to hire. Someone like 37Signals get much more enthusiastic and higher quality candidates than some random shop.

Beyond that, unfortunately, I haven't been in that position too often! Or rather, I was too stubborn to let go of the reigns when I was. If you have specific questions though, email me about your scenario and what you're doing. Maybe I can share some insights or introduce you to someone who could help.

Also:

> I was under the impression, from reading his essays, that Paul was against single founders because they might give up too easily, so a founder who sticks to his idea would be desirable.

My understanding of Paul's argument has been that most initial ideas are bad and that a successful startup requires changing course until your idea matches a marketable need. This suggests an important distinction between stubbornness - refusing to change direction - and persistence - refusing to give up.

Caveat: I don't know the author and have no idea whether he is stubborn, persistent, or anything else.

Yeah, and maybe check my spelling :) Thanks for pointing that out!