41–50 of 156 posts
It seems like when things got tough you focused more on what your co-founders weren't doing and less on what you could be doing yourself.
I just figured I'd throw this out there to see if anyone has any insight on it: Do you think certain personality types are probably better off being solo founders? Maybe loners, or people who aren't people persons. Or maybe ADHD types who have trouble keeping relationships on an even keel? Or maybe the Steve Jobs egomaniac, force-of-will types (although, I know he started w/ a co-founder). Obviously, it could depend…
However, for a person without such problems it is probably better to avoid this extra complexity unless there is a huge upside to the partnership that compensates for the downside.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost all of these things apply to marriage as well, minus the bits about exit strategy. If you think committing to the same direction for 2-3 years is difficult, it's not time to get married yet!
A couple doesn't need to have the _same_ direction, they just need to have compatible ones. For example, a programmer married to a doctor. They have two different directions, but if the only real compatibility requirement is that they live in the same city, then seems fine.
For example, a couple needs to agree on:
* How to divide up responsibilities at home
* Expectations of income (who works? how much?)
* Whether or not to combine their income or keep it separate (and how will they spend it)
* Whether or not to have kids (and who will raise them)
* How to negotiate extended family commitments on both sides
I think your example of the programmer and the doctor underlines the need for more agreement than physical proximity. What if the programmer wants to quit her job and work full time on a start up idea, taking no salary for the next 3 years? The doctor will have to make adjustments in his lifestyle to accommodate that decision. If they are not headed the same direction, that would bring enormous pressure to the marriage.
Interesting points, but a lot of it is contradictory to the advice you hear from successful startups, so I'd take this with a grain of salt. "I believe that my previous two ventures failed mainly because of the founding team (which I’m included in). How do I know? Because companies with almost identical products and value propositions succeeded afterwards. " I'm not sure if you're drawing the correct lesson there. So…
I think the reasons described in the OP are more about having the wrong founding team. This is also why we have things like vesting - if someone decides not to work full time, consult elsewhere then they should lose part of their shareholding.
Interesting points, but a lot of it is contradictory to the advice you hear from successful startups, so I'd take this with a grain of salt. "I believe that my previous two ventures failed mainly because of the founding team (which I’m included in). How do I know? Because companies with almost identical products and value propositions succeeded afterwards. " I'm not sure if you're drawing the correct lesson there. So…
You're right, correlation doesn't equal causation. However, in my specific case the implementation issues were came from issues in the team. In the end, implementation comes down to team. (Hindsight is always 20/20, but everything we did wrong had to do with marketing and building and audience)
I think it's easy to blame other people for problems, but the path to self-improvement is internalization.
Someone on your team missed a deadline which fubarr'd your project? Your fault for not checking in with them to make sure they delivering what you wanted.
Someone forget to put the trash out. Your fault for trusting them.
This is a bit dishonest, but empowering for the following reason: You cannot control other people. If you internalize the failure as your own, you can often make more strides to prevent the failure next time than by simply assigning blame.
Of course this theory must be tempered by the old Steven Winterburn quote: "Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes."
I'll take working solo any day, over working with those who can't. Been there, done that.
P.S. Also applies after s/can't/won't/ . And corporate life is full of cases that leave you wondering which apply and in what percentages. "Team" is not a panacea -- not from my perspective.
P.P.S. I do not mean to ignore the roles and need for training and learning. But there are people who hardly seem to benefit from, or even genuinely engage in, these.
I'm a single founder and can only say the experience is rather grinding. I'm all up for the "If you don't help, at least don't get in the way" motto. I decided to pursue my current venture without a cofounder precisaly because I didn't find enough people that had both the skills and (understandably) the willingness to quit their nice paying jobs. For me, it doesn't really make sense to have people aboard unless they…
I agree that it is exhausting. I'm 2 months into a solo founded startup and the mental fatigue is not what I expected. Reflecting on it now, it certainly makes sense, but I just didn't know that it can be so taxing. I've told myself that if I make it to a next round of funding I need to find a partner stat.
If I could find a co-founder or two, I'd be thrilled. But finding someone really worth their weight hasn't happened yet. And I'm not going to just sit there and ignore this opportunity just because I can't find someone to hold my hand while I'm doing it. I'm going to get it out the door, even if I have to do every little thing myself.
Having a co-founder is great. But not having one is no excuse to not work.
Interesting points, but a lot of it is contradictory to the advice you hear from successful startups, so I'd take this with a grain of salt. "I believe that my previous two ventures failed mainly because of the founding team (which I’m included in). How do I know? Because companies with almost identical products and value propositions succeeded afterwards. " I'm not sure if you're drawing the correct lesson there. So…
My sole successful venture has been solo all along (not including employees), and has outlasted the rises and falls of the other businesses (during the amateur entrepreneur "too many fingers in too many pies" phase). I don't think I'd do a partnership again. But maybe I just don't play well with others?
Anyway, can't speak for the OP, but when intelligent, ambitious friends around you see that you work your tail off and already have succeeded at building a profitable business from scratch, they suddenly get really excited about starting new businesses with you that often sound great. At least in my experience though, many of these people turn out to see themselves as "the visionary" who kinda sorta checks in from time to time and you as "the worker," which, if that isn't the role you're interested in, causes things to unravel rather fast.