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

Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 172 posts

Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder

#151

Post by ScottBurson »

rsp1984 wrote: post #83
nxzero wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Working your butt off has zero to do with having a executable vision that creates value. Clearly shit needs to get done, but there's only so many hours in the a life of a startup and being able to see what needs to be done ultimately is more important than just getting stuff done. __ "I choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it." - Bill Gates

Oh, I agree that a startup needs an executable vision. However if someone provides just the vision but doesn't put as much work in as everybody else that's an advisory role, not a co-founder role, and should be reflected in the equity distribution. The thing is that vision is just so much easier than actually doing the grinding grunt work. "Vision without execution is hallucination" - Thomas Edison

> "Vision without execution is hallucination" - Thomas Edison

I like this one better:

If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them. -- Henry David Thoreau

Both quotes are getting at pretty much the same point, I think, but the Thoreau quote is kinder, and more encouraging.

Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder

#153

Post by marcosdumay »

baccheion wrote: post #137

The data isn't well-presented (52.3% of exits would be a negative if 68% of the companies considered had only 1 founder, as that would mean less received an exit than would be expected), but if you normalize the percentage of exits with the percentage funded, you roughly see that the author's original claim is likely true. 1: 52.3 / 45.9 = 1.1394 2: 30.1 / 31.9 = -1.0598 3: 12.5 / 15.0 = -1.2000 4: 3.7 / 5.3 = -1.432…

It's evidence investors discriminate against single founders... What isn't really news, is it?

Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder

#154

Post by rdtsc »

jomamaxx wrote: post #145
Amygaz wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. And I also have a tendency, based on a few personal experiences, to associate self-proclaimed visionaries, with narcissistic personality disorder. And it is also my experience that, besides being very active in taking credits for other people ideas, design and work, they are typically lazy and a hindrance. However, somehow, they're alway seems to be able to find people who will do the job for them,…

There is definitely such a thing as 'architecture' role in software. Usually they have a lot of experience, and work on larger teams where such things are necessary.

Agree. I didn't mean that the role is not there. It is more about people walking around and saying "I am the architect". I've heard that once. He wasn't joking.

Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder

#155

Post by axlprose »

jomamaxx wrote: post #149
axlprose wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who actively works researching personality psychology, I can fully attest to this. There actually seems to be somewhat of a Dunning-Kruger like effect when it comes to people evaluation skills. Generally, those who appear the most confident about their people judgements, also seem to be those who are wildly speculative and inaccurate about what other people are thinking.

'Not knowing what someone else is thinking' - is completely different from 'knowing human nature'. For example, people tend to be a little lazy, or tend towards 'doing less'. If one could get 100K for sitting on one's butt - most people would take the offer. Some people would rather work, or do something more creative. This is different from being able to 'read' people.

Yes, but unfortunately people tend to make a lot of critical decisions based around what they interpret other people's motives to be; leaving out that bit of human behavior from the equation can be a big deal.

One ceo may may look at a worker exhibiting stereotypical output of a "lazy" person and decide this person must not care about their work and thus should be fired. Meanwhile another may see this as a symptom of burnout from caring about their work too much and decide the worker should get some time off to relax. Regardless of who's interpretation is correct, it is a decision than can have a big impact on a person.

The behavioural economics approach is definitely worth keeping in mind regardless of people-reading ability, but we should be weary of interpreting such things as being too 'directly applicable' in anything other than very generalized circumstances. Unfortunately, I've seen my fair share of cases like the example I stated above, so it is worth remembering that there is no such thing as "the average person". Not to say there aren't definite patterns of behavior of course, but that's a whole other conversation.

Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder

#156

Post by jomamaxx »

axlprose wrote: post #155
jomamaxx wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Not knowing what someone else is thinking' - is completely different from 'knowing human nature'. For example, people tend to be a little lazy, or tend towards 'doing less'. If one could get 100K for sitting on one's butt - most people would take the offer. Some people would rather work, or do something more creative. This is different from being able to 'read' people.

Yes, but unfortunately people tend to make a lot of critical decisions based around what they interpret other people's motives to be; leaving out that bit of human behavior from the equation can be a big deal. One ceo may may look at a worker exhibiting stereotypical output of a "lazy" person and decide this person must not care about their work and thus should be fired. Meanwhile another may see this as a symptom of…

Yeah, I am weary of the slobby fat guy with bad manners being perceived as 'lazy' - those guys can be just as much the opposite of that as any other.

I agree with most of what you say, but I disagree that there isn't such a thing as the 'average person', or rather, we are animals, somewhat predictable, not that unique.

Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder

#157

Post by jomamaxx »

rdtsc wrote: post #154
jomamaxx wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is definitely such a thing as 'architecture' role in software. Usually they have a lot of experience, and work on larger teams where such things are necessary.

Agree. I didn't mean that the role is not there. It is more about people walking around and saying "I am the architect". I've heard that once. He wasn't joking.

There's nothing wrong with someone saying 'I'm the architect' - if that's what they really are. That said, it might be a power thing.

Now - there's more wrong in saying 'I'm an architect' - because architect really is not a profession, really. I suppose you could kind of get away with saying that if you have a lot of experience, and have been in the role of architect for some time, but it's a difficult thing to say and strains credibility if you were to put it on a resume.

Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder

#158

Post by axlprose »

jomamaxx wrote: post #156
axlprose wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but unfortunately people tend to make a lot of critical decisions based around what they interpret other people's motives to be; leaving out that bit of human behavior from the equation can be a big deal. One ceo may may look at a worker exhibiting stereotypical output of a "lazy" person and decide this person must not care about their work and thus should be fired. Meanwhile another may see this as a symptom of…

Yeah, I am weary of the slobby fat guy with bad manners being perceived as 'lazy' - those guys can be just as much the opposite of that as any other. I agree with most of what you say, but I disagree that there isn't such a thing as the 'average person', or rather, we are animals, somewhat predictable, not that unique.

> we are animals, somewhat predictable, not that unique.

Oh I agree completely, didn't mean to give the impression I advocate the "special snowflake" view of the world either. My apologies! My entire field of research is practically based around our predictability ;)

What I meant to say rather, was that while there are definite behavioural patterns, they tend to cluster into discrete groupings, rather than being broad and generally applicable traits that can be used on everyone across the board in aggregate (i.e. a singular "average person"). There are certainly many 'trivial' human traits we all share in common of course, but I've found those to be less helpful in personal decision making situations than more specific correlated traits. But then again, I might be a bit bias given that's my area of expertise :)

Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder

#159

Post by raarts »

throwaway7312 wrote: post #9

I've cofounded 4 different startups. All were good ideas that bled cash or time and flopped, largely due to infighting or founder differences. One cofounder of one of the companies got really nasty about trying to leave with the rights to the company and we other two cofounders just let him have it. He sold the rights and it's now a successful venture-backed startup with soaring profits (two cofounders). Good for tha…

Are older single founders more likely to succeed?

Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder

#160

Post by asd999101 »

I think investor preference for multiple founders is almost entirely because it makes it easier to make voting control of the company not be in the hands of a single founder they might disagree with. Two founders provides twice the opportunity to take control.
Post reply on HN