Having a cofounder is a blessing and a curse at the same time.

I've worked for a lot of startups and observed two primary causes of startup death: 1. VCs forced bad decisions on the startup. 2. Founders fought, resulting in bad decisions.

I think co-founders are an improvement over single-founder, but I think there should be a primary founder, the leader, with whom the buck stops, and with whom all of the co-founders are willing to defer if they don't reach consensus. There should be a chief and indians and even if everyone starts at the same time, the relationship should be discussed and understood in advance.

Much of the drama I've seen is inherent to the "Everyone is equal" perception.

If you're willing to be a cofounder in this environment- where you're NOT the leader and NOT equal to the leader- then from the beginning you've agreed to subordinate your ego to some extent to the founder, and so this should remove the ego driven need to defend yourself on things that really aren't that relevant which seems to be the cause of a lot of the drama.

I think PG echoed very similar sentiments in a recent interview with TC where he said he looked for teams where there was a clear leader. This fits my experience.

For practical reasons there needs to be someone to break ties in decisions. However, this is different to thinking that your are somehow better than others. In business you should check your ego at the door, especially if you are in a position where you need to be the tie breaker.

The idea of "everyone is equal" is to remind yourself to respect your coworkers, actually consider their inputs, and remember that you too can be just as wrong as you might think others are. The idea not "we are equal thus if we disagree then nothing happens."

> However, the positives far outweigh any negatives.

I'm solo-founding my own start-up right now, and I find that I agree with this statement as a general rule, but I find that it is advice that should be given based on personality type.

That said, I think there are ways to minimize the negatives by "out-sourcing" some of the co-founder responsibilities.

A. Motivation

I have a couple of friends who are just curious about the start-up process. They've been involved from day one, if only passively, and are just curious about what I'm building so it gives me someone to share my latest modification/addition with. That way I don't feel like I'm building in a vacuum.

B. Work Sharing

This is, for me, the hardest part of being a solo-founder -- the vague feeling that if I don't do something, it's never ever going to get done. It gets to be an amazing burden. Lately I've taken to using outsourcing sites (like, oDesk) and just assigning small relatively unimportant tasks. ("Design a confirmation email", "Turn this data into a chart using two or three libraries"). It's easy to say "Well I could just do that", but then spending $30-$50 to just not have to worry about it, gives you the feeling of stuff getting done with out you.

C. Idea Evaluation

You can still talk to your friends/peers about any given aspect of your idea, and its execution, and even if they haven't been involved in the ins and outs, it doesn't mean their input is useless. Sometimes, I would imagine, you get more honest feedback from someone who doesn't have a financial stake in what happens. It removes much of the emotional component of an argument and allows you to just talk about it intellectually/theoretically. I find that I'm actually more receptive to feedback when I don't feel any sense of obligation to hear that person out.

D. Accountability

Do what smokers do. Tell your three closest friends that "by this weekend, I'll have [x] working."

Anyway, just rambling. Of course if I had a co-founder they might tell me to stop commenting on HN and get back to work, so maybe I'm invalidating my point as I go.