Live data from Hacker News

Absolutely, DO NOT, get a co-founder!

news.ycombinator.com

41–50 of 98 posts

Re: Absolutely, DO NOT, get a co-founder!

#41

i think the title is misleading. "Sure, its better to have more than one person in the company... and feel free to call your second thru fourth employees 'co-founders' or give them 'founders stock'... whatever." it's alright to have co-founders as long as everyone agrees that at the end of the day one co-founder has the final say no matter what, though I don't think it's necessary to be disparaging and think of them…

I think its kinda arrogant to say that founders are superior and thus its disparaging to call someone an employee.

Employees should be highly valued.

Inadvertantly you've highlighted another problem with having cofounders, especially in a startup- you have an intrinsic clique of inner circle people, the founders.

Re: Absolutely, DO NOT, get a co-founder!

#42
post #37

I like the case you're making here, which mainly seems to be that if you're waiting around on a cofounder, you're trying to solve the wrong problem. Unless you already have a potential cofounder in mind, you may be opening yourself to other problems by trying to find one (delaying the project, working with someone who turns out to be not as good as hoped, etc.). So I have to agree that your advice to just start worki…

Hey there- That's what happens when you have creative collaboration with someone. Every employee you hire should be sharp enough to be able to do so, and the good ones will be bringing ideas to you unbiden. If you've got a co-founder, great. Nothing wrong with that... its just that the idea that you need one is in error, and if you ever have to present to someone who thinks that way, your first couple of employees yo…

I definitely see where you're coming from, and I agree to a certain extent. It's just that there are some things that an employee may not do which I cofounder would, in my own hypothetically-played-out-in-my-head scenario.

1. An employee is less likely than a cofounder to express disagreement, especially on ideas that it seems like you are "married to".

2. A cofounder is presumably completely onboard with you and the project. They are there with you from day one and feel (almost) just as strongly as you do about it. If things take a turn for the worst, they are more likely to hang on for the ride than an employee, who might elect to take up a position at a more promising-looking startup or a job with more security.

3. A cofounder is more likely to become an outside-work friend (if s/he is not one already). In general, true boss-employee friendships are hard to come by. Having a friend who completely understands the ups and downs of the project can be important psychologically and emotionally.

Don't get me wrong... I agree with you that a startup can definitely be done independently by the right person. I just wouldn't agree that a cofounder is a detriment. It certainly can turn out that way, but it could also turn out that you make a lifelong friend and get that extra value that helps your startup get through the rough patches.

Re: Absolutely, DO NOT, get a co-founder!

#43
post #22
post #9

not having a cofounder can be used as an excuse for not starting anything at all. it's probably better to start and take action. that might be the best strategy to attract the right cofounder anyway.

this is very well said, the single biggest determent of a startups success is product/market fit, not team (i.e co-founder) (see:The Only thing that Matters: http://blog.pmarca.com/2007/06/the-pmarca-gu-2.html ). If you've got a solid idea you need to push it forward, not having a perfect co-founder right away is a lame "go or no go" decider. Pitch constantly, get out of your apartment, and scour your networks for co…

"the single biggest determent of a startups success is product/market fit, not team"

I believe this must be true because I can't count the number of times when I've heard investors say "it doesn't matter about the product, we invest in the team." (I'm not being sarcastic, its only dumb money out there.)

Re: Absolutely, DO NOT, get a co-founder!

#45
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey there- That's what happens when you have creative collaboration with someone. Every employee you hire should be sharp enough to be able to do so, and the good ones will be bringing ideas to you unbiden. If you've got a co-founder, great. Nothing wrong with that... its just that the idea that you need one is in error, and if you ever have to present to someone who thinks that way, your first couple of employees yo…

I definitely see where you're coming from, and I agree to a certain extent. It's just that there are some things that an employee may not do which I cofounder would, in my own hypothetically-played-out-in-my-head scenario. 1. An employee is less likely than a cofounder to express disagreement, especially on ideas that it seems like you are "married to". 2. A cofounder is presumably completely onboard with you and the…

Apologies if we're stating to go in circles...

1. Not if you take them into your confidence and make them know that you value their opinion. Who doesn't want the CEO's ear? Its really all about the attitude you show them (and their personality, which is something you can select for.)

2. I think that you should hire with the same criteria and standards that you find a co-founder, and you should reward people based on their contributions. I've watched co-founders work themselves inot a cushy CTO role where all they did was go to conference and pontificate via long (never read) memos to the rest of the company, while another cofounder- the VP of engineering- did all the heavy lifting.

3. Maybe- if your cofounder is someone you knew before founding the company, then I think this is true and it could be a critical factor in the quality of that particular compnay. Like I said, if you already have a founder, or you already have someone you know who is perfect (they aren't but that you think so means they are close enough) then great- be co-founders.

But the general word is- don't start a company without finding a co-founder first, and that's not right.

I have worked on teams where the "boss" and the people on the team had a very healthy working friendship. This included lots of outside of work activities, generally because we were to a large extent a family. But this isn't necessarily easy, and like you say if you have a cofounder who can provide that, then it would be foolish not to start a company with them.

Re: Absolutely, DO NOT, get a co-founder!

#46
post #16

BitGeek: Your post is simply amazing. I couldn't agree more. Having multiple co-Founders does not guarantee success but also does not guarantee failure. But if a startup with multiple co-Founders were to somehow become successful, it is still very difficult for it to grow beyond the bootstrapping stage. I actually have one chapter planned for my on-line book to be entitled "Middle Management Gone Wild" which is what…

It is the same difficulty that a hunting party would have growing into a village. Maybe it's just me, but this analogy is not all that clear to me. What exactly prevents a hunting party from growing into a village? If the point is that a village would require people to fill support roles, I think that is what the employees of the company would be for. That would destroy the analogy, so I think I must be missing somet…

In the beginning of a startup, especially one that has multiple co-Founders of equal stature, the command structure is exactly that of a hunting party. That is, members of the party do not have rigid roles although they each have distinct skills. Their lives center around well-defined hunting events, the success of each is important for their subsequent survival.

The decision making process tends to be ad hoc and each person can take on multiple and often overlapping roles which can change from event to event, depending on the need of the team and also their ability to perform that same role in a previous event. In other words, the command structure is very flat and communication between each member is direct and unambiguous. Most importantly, consensus is a requirement since everyone is equal and while there might be a leader, there cannot be a dictator. It is a democracy as well as a meritocracy.

An operating company is like a village which is led by a single leader who is not popularly elected but appointed by a group of elders, and has dictatorial power over the villagers. There is usually unspoken but well understood rules on what is proper conduct for each member of the village include the leader, the elders who are the ones that bestow the authority, the captains, the foot solders and all the other supporting personnel including the children that make the village livable and sustainable.

The command structure of the village is no longer flat. Decisions that are made at the top need to be propagated as well as diffused into the individuals. Consensus is less important and is replaced by consultation. Decisions are made by mandates and not through bartering among equals. In order to function, there has to be both punishment and rewards. Punishment of the non-performers is actually an important form of rewards for the performers. Most importantly, unlike a hunting party, the roles are much more well-defined and much more rigid.

It is very difficult for a hunting party to naturally evolve into a village. The requirement is for some of original hunters to give up their executive power to become non-executive elders and to elect a single leader to become an authoritative figure who can make unpopular decision for everyone to follow.

It is almost impossible for a startup with multiple equal co-Founders to grow beyond the original flat command structure because it is unnatural for anyone to give up power (or influence), especially if they were the ones who made the company successfully in the first place.

The hunters are individual contributors who at best can evolve into middle managers. But middle managers who are also major shareholders would have a hard time separating their ownership interest from their fiduciary responsibility.

It is a very interesting problem to solve.

--Denny--

Denny K Miu

http://www.startupforless.com

Re: Absolutely, DO NOT, get a co-founder!

#47

I kind of wonder if there is a middle ground. There are two different posts on the front page right now: one deriding the idea of co-founders and one from someone desperately seeking a co-founder. My (worthless) advice is to let it happen naturally. Neither seek out a co-founder nor refuse co-founders who approach you. Just try to make friends with similar people who are interested in startups. Talk about ideas. It d…

Right... somewhere "get a cofounder" became a blocking requirement for starting a company, and that's a mistake. Go forward, and make it happen, and don't worry if you don't have a cofounder.

Re: Absolutely, DO NOT, get a co-founder!

#48
post #8

RailsFactory is a Ruby on Rails development shop based in Chennai, India. when you are a very small startup, and self funded, you just need to make 2-3 bad moves to go into bankruptcy and closure. Startups have its Eureka moments and frustrating times I consider myself more of a visionary than a implementer, I get into high energy mode in short bursts, but my partner keeps our company sane. I find my co-Founder a gre…

Well, I think it depends on what those 2-3 bad moves are... I don't think its that tenuous-- when you're self funded. ( When you take outside investment, at least in the US, its a situation where you take a lot more risk...)

I'm glad you and your co-founder have a good relationship. Nothing wrong with that at all!

Re: Absolutely, DO NOT, get a co-founder!

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, if you're just planning on making a Facebook app, I hope you're doing it for fun, or to satisfy your own app desire, or with some eye towards a future opportunity. Making a Facebook app interface for an independent site makes a lot of sense, but I would not want to center my entire business model on a closed platform that has shown little evidence of revenue with the constant threat to have my functionali…

Nothing prevents you from doing that after you come up with a viral app. Facebook is a nice place to experiment because it takes so little time to build Facebook only apps.

I guess I'm trying to say that there are plenty of Facebook apps (free gifts, HTML walls) that are "viral" and easy to build, but how many of these have any chance at making money? I'm implying that any Facebook application that is useful enough to become a "founded company" will involve an external site of some sort, one that involves the same types of inherent complications that are present in any other startup.

What do you have in mind that can be built almost entirely in Facebook and expanded later on? I suppose if I think hard enough I can come up with some long shot ideas that may or may not work out (product-rating apps which could be expanded to include other social networks, for one), but even something like this is going to require some kind of heavy backend analysis to be especially useful. Keep in mind that we're also ignoring the (very real) possibility of Facebook sweeping in and mirroring any successful application or approach to generating revenue.

On another note, what makes Facebook any easier for experimentation than Apache? Writing scripts that print pages to a browser is as easy as writing to standard output.

Re: Absolutely, DO NOT, get a co-founder!

#50
post #27
post #8

RailsFactory is a Ruby on Rails development shop based in Chennai, India. when you are a very small startup, and self funded, you just need to make 2-3 bad moves to go into bankruptcy and closure. Startups have its Eureka moments and frustrating times I consider myself more of a visionary than a implementer, I get into high energy mode in short bursts, but my partner keeps our company sane. I find my co-Founder a gre…

Why is this post is at -3? It may be a little rough (non-native English presumably) but it's totally on topic and not spammy.

because a consulting company doing outsourced work at hourly rates is not what most people here mean by "startup". If that were so Bangalore has thousands of "startups".

 Having said that, I think we should still focus on the point he makes. 
But yeah a -3 sounds about right. :-)
Post reply on HN