Having Co-founders Is Valuable But Not Crucial(rolfnelson.com)
rolfnelson.com
Having Co-founders Is Valuable But Not Crucial
http://www.rolfnelson.com/2009/11/having-co-founders-is-valuable-but-not.html
4 comments
I believe if you feel you have found a good co-founder, go for it; it is much, much better to have a co-founder than to go solo. But a bad co-founder is worse than no co-founder.
Exactly. I won't put words into anyone's mouth, but I believe the value of cofounders is for the investor - given many startups to fund, a good cofounder group will make faster progress, have fewer roadblocks, play cheerleader to one another, reduce the incidence of depression and despair. Its about return on investment. Why fund a unicycle when you can choose from many functional bicycles?
I think the key point is more about how YC operates. At least from afar, it seems that they stick to the model that worked for PG and company, which means they strongly favor having cofounders. PG has also said, repeatedly, that they do occasionally found a single founder, so they're not dogmatic about it, just heavily biased.
An important thing to keep in mind is that you don't want a "cargo cult co founder", where you are trying to sign someone up "because you're supposed to have one".
An important thing to keep in mind is that you don't want a "cargo cult co founder", where you are trying to sign someone up "because you're supposed to have one".
I've been avoiding the "finding a cofounder for the sake of having a cofounder" mistake myself. It gets lonely sometimes, coding and trying to work out user experience all alone, but I'd rather do it alone (for now anyway) then have a cofounder who I have to babysit. Maybe I should send my wife to take some Web Design classes and teach her to find her way around jquery :-)
Rule 2: never go into business with your spouse!
When my wife's family gets together to play games like Pictionary her grandfather won't let couples play on the same team because he says they fight too much. I wonder if investors feel the same way :-)
Loads of successful businesses were made by couples. Cisco comes to mind first.
Even if your spouse doesn't do your web design, he/she is in business with you. Its critical your spouse supports this lifestyle.
Thank you for the great post on a subject near and dear to many of us.
I am a single founder who constantly wonders if I should be. I have founded 2 startups before and both imploded solely because of founder issues. One had 4 of us and I spent more than half my time playing referee. I will never go through that again. AFAIC, nothing is more important than being in business with the right people (except having plenty of customers, maybe.)
I am working hard and steady on my new venture, but I do not actively recruit potential co-founders. I freely share what I'm working on (hinting at opportunities for co-founders) and sit back to see what happens. Since I believe the single most important trait of a good co-founder is sheer determination, I hope someone will come to me insisting, "We should do this...," "I could do that...," "Let's try this...", etc. Sorry to say, this strategy hasn't worked too well, but I'd still rather be alone than be with someone who doesn't push as hard as I do.
I know about half a dozen excellent people who I'd love as co-founders, but all have mortgages, families, and other commitments. Our startup would always be a child to me, but only a step-child to them. So I don't push.
I understand pg's concern about single founder startups; they're a lot of work! There are many times I wish I had someone to share with or help me out. But under the circumstances, I'd rather plow along, always positioning myself to have a co-founder, but just as ready to launch alone if need be. I'm not afraid to do that and I don't think other single co-founders should be either.
OP's links were great and for a single co-founder, a little reassuring. Who is fauigerzigerk? I don't recognize him here.
OP's discussion about the "bozo" factor was just silly. Sure, if you're still in school, you should have no trouble finding suitable co-founders. But as you get a little older, there are many good reasons for being a single founder without being a bozo. Those of us who are should remain open to accepting the right co-founder, but in the meantime, just keep on working hard.
I am a single founder who constantly wonders if I should be. I have founded 2 startups before and both imploded solely because of founder issues. One had 4 of us and I spent more than half my time playing referee. I will never go through that again. AFAIC, nothing is more important than being in business with the right people (except having plenty of customers, maybe.)
I am working hard and steady on my new venture, but I do not actively recruit potential co-founders. I freely share what I'm working on (hinting at opportunities for co-founders) and sit back to see what happens. Since I believe the single most important trait of a good co-founder is sheer determination, I hope someone will come to me insisting, "We should do this...," "I could do that...," "Let's try this...", etc. Sorry to say, this strategy hasn't worked too well, but I'd still rather be alone than be with someone who doesn't push as hard as I do.
I know about half a dozen excellent people who I'd love as co-founders, but all have mortgages, families, and other commitments. Our startup would always be a child to me, but only a step-child to them. So I don't push.
I understand pg's concern about single founder startups; they're a lot of work! There are many times I wish I had someone to share with or help me out. But under the circumstances, I'd rather plow along, always positioning myself to have a co-founder, but just as ready to launch alone if need be. I'm not afraid to do that and I don't think other single co-founders should be either.
OP's links were great and for a single co-founder, a little reassuring. Who is fauigerzigerk? I don't recognize him here.
OP's discussion about the "bozo" factor was just silly. Sure, if you're still in school, you should have no trouble finding suitable co-founders. But as you get a little older, there are many good reasons for being a single founder without being a bozo. Those of us who are should remain open to accepting the right co-founder, but in the meantime, just keep on working hard.
I'm in pretty much the same situation as you, having done startups before with cofounders and encountered lots of problems related to that. Now I'm a single founder.
The problem (at least for me) is that you have to find someone that's smart, gets things done and have the determination required to do a startup. It seems that there are a lot of dreamers that like the idea of doing a startup, but when the rubber meets the road almost all people bail. Not that I blame them, most people have commitments that requires them to hold steady incomes, spend time with family, etc.
Finding a good co-founder is almost as hard as doing a startup. There are lots of people that will say yes when you ask them, but very very few that will actually get something meaningful done to move things forward in a serious way.
The problem (at least for me) is that you have to find someone that's smart, gets things done and have the determination required to do a startup. It seems that there are a lot of dreamers that like the idea of doing a startup, but when the rubber meets the road almost all people bail. Not that I blame them, most people have commitments that requires them to hold steady incomes, spend time with family, etc.
Finding a good co-founder is almost as hard as doing a startup. There are lots of people that will say yes when you ask them, but very very few that will actually get something meaningful done to move things forward in a serious way.
With regards to the "bozo" thing - I read it a little differently. I took it to mean that anyone can be committed to their own crazy idea; but when you are able to talk someone else into being committed to it, it acts as a kind of validation of the idea. So, that makes it a handy litmus test for investors to use since you've already convinced at least one other person that it's a good idea.
...when you are able to talk someone else into being committed to it, it acts as a kind of validation of the idea.
I've heard this argument before, but I don't buy it. All it really proves is that group think is alive and well.
Two classic counter-examples:
1. I can come up with the most ridiculous idea in the world and still find someone who I could convince of anything.
2. I can come up with the best idea in the world and still not be able to convince anyone to join me, but be able to convince many people to buy it.
I've heard this argument before, but I don't buy it. All it really proves is that group think is alive and well.
Two classic counter-examples:
1. I can come up with the most ridiculous idea in the world and still find someone who I could convince of anything.
2. I can come up with the best idea in the world and still not be able to convince anyone to join me, but be able to convince many people to buy it.
I disagree with your characterization.
Have you ever tried to convince someone to join a truly ridiculous idea? You'd be surprised. People aren't that stupid. We are talking about someone joining as a co-founder. Therefore, that person has some basic notion of what a co-founder is, what a startup looks like, etc. We are not talking about finding a random person on the street who'll give you a quote "great idea".
For the best idea in the world, I also challenge you not to find anyone who believes in it.
Now, to be practical rather than extreme, my experience shows me that having co-founders brings a lot of value during the brainstorming phase. Although I like to think of myself as very smart - I could figure out everything on my own, right? Co-founders bring balance. Once in a while, I have a crazy idea that deserves to be killed. But I'm crazy enough that on my own, I might do it. With co-founders, you get very quick reality check.
The secret is to find co-founders who share your vision 90% of the time, and help keep you on the right track the 10% when you are wrong.
If you don't share the vision with your co-founders and can't even agree 50% of the time, then you are correct: it will be a waste of your time, arguing endlessly about trivial stuff.
Have you ever tried to convince someone to join a truly ridiculous idea? You'd be surprised. People aren't that stupid. We are talking about someone joining as a co-founder. Therefore, that person has some basic notion of what a co-founder is, what a startup looks like, etc. We are not talking about finding a random person on the street who'll give you a quote "great idea".
For the best idea in the world, I also challenge you not to find anyone who believes in it.
Now, to be practical rather than extreme, my experience shows me that having co-founders brings a lot of value during the brainstorming phase. Although I like to think of myself as very smart - I could figure out everything on my own, right? Co-founders bring balance. Once in a while, I have a crazy idea that deserves to be killed. But I'm crazy enough that on my own, I might do it. With co-founders, you get very quick reality check.
The secret is to find co-founders who share your vision 90% of the time, and help keep you on the right track the 10% when you are wrong.
If you don't share the vision with your co-founders and can't even agree 50% of the time, then you are correct: it will be a waste of your time, arguing endlessly about trivial stuff.
I think your 90% vs. 50% characterization is spot on. I once tried to found a company with someone who has fairly fundamentally different views on many things, thinking it would balance my crazy ideas out with an alternate viewpoint, but we just ended up fighting about trivialities, and could barely get anything done.
I think close to 100% is ideal, as long as noone is being a yes-man.
I think close to 100% is ideal, as long as noone is being a yes-man.
I don't think this is really a black-and-white sort of situation. I only meant that it becomes an indicator for investors to quickly decide what it is that they're looking at. Solo founder, no customers? Probably weaker than a group of founders with no customers or a solo founder with customers.
For whatever it's worth, I don't think that it makes that much difference to success; but I do think it makes a difference in your chances of getting funded. I don't see those two things as necessarily related.
For whatever it's worth, I don't think that it makes that much difference to success; but I do think it makes a difference in your chances of getting funded. I don't see those two things as necessarily related.
The question isn't whether you buy the argument, it's whether VCs buy the argument.
I'm sure they don't - I mean, who's ever accused VCs of groupthink?
I'm sure they don't - I mean, who's ever accused VCs of groupthink?
corollary: admitting to yourself that your idea has been wrong and requires change is much easier and thus more likely to happen than making a team of cofounders radically change course.
"But under the circumstances, I'd rather plow along, always positioning myself to have a co-founder, but just as ready to launch alone if need be. I'm not afraid to do that and I don't think other single co-founders should be either."
I think that's the right attitude. It's like a marriage. Dual income is a wonderful thing. Sharing costs, having a permanent partner to plan with, complementary skillsets, etc., etc. But that doesn't mean you should go grab a mail order bride catalog.
There are plenty of successful solo founders out there. There are also plenty of amputees who overcome that disadvantage and run marathons. 2 good founders are way more than 2 x 1 good founders. Having a good co-founder almost certainly increases your chance of success and magnitude of it. It's not just that you have 2x the work output. You have a duty to someone else all of a sudden-- quitting is less of an option (and quitting ALWAYS kills startups). You have a second set of brain cells to catch you being stupid-- and you will be stupid about some things. You have a cheerleader at the low points. You have someone else keeping their eyes peeled on your market for opportunities that you might miss. You have a whole new set of connections/relationships to leverage. There are some great studies showing that a group of average people outperforms solo smart people on complex problem solving tasks (here's one-- there are lots: http://is.gd/4O3kn )
I think you're wrong about the child/stepchild analogy, though-- or maybe it's just that I think you're wrong that your child has even been BORN yet. It's more like a house that you've started building, but all you really have is a couple of boards, a few sketches, and maybe a solid foundation.
Of course, maybe you are more in love with YOUR idea/vision/existing code than the idea of just building something great and being successful... Which I guess is fine. :-) But unless you already have a growth curve that goes up and to the right, I tihnk a good co-founder is way more of an asset than the thinking/coding you've done to date.
I think that's the right attitude. It's like a marriage. Dual income is a wonderful thing. Sharing costs, having a permanent partner to plan with, complementary skillsets, etc., etc. But that doesn't mean you should go grab a mail order bride catalog.
There are plenty of successful solo founders out there. There are also plenty of amputees who overcome that disadvantage and run marathons. 2 good founders are way more than 2 x 1 good founders. Having a good co-founder almost certainly increases your chance of success and magnitude of it. It's not just that you have 2x the work output. You have a duty to someone else all of a sudden-- quitting is less of an option (and quitting ALWAYS kills startups). You have a second set of brain cells to catch you being stupid-- and you will be stupid about some things. You have a cheerleader at the low points. You have someone else keeping their eyes peeled on your market for opportunities that you might miss. You have a whole new set of connections/relationships to leverage. There are some great studies showing that a group of average people outperforms solo smart people on complex problem solving tasks (here's one-- there are lots: http://is.gd/4O3kn )
I think you're wrong about the child/stepchild analogy, though-- or maybe it's just that I think you're wrong that your child has even been BORN yet. It's more like a house that you've started building, but all you really have is a couple of boards, a few sketches, and maybe a solid foundation.
Of course, maybe you are more in love with YOUR idea/vision/existing code than the idea of just building something great and being successful... Which I guess is fine. :-) But unless you already have a growth curve that goes up and to the right, I tihnk a good co-founder is way more of an asset than the thinking/coding you've done to date.
It wasn't silly at all. What he was saying was that the set of all single founders has a higher bozos/nonbozos ratio than the set of all cofounders. That doesn't mean that the absolute number of non-bozo single founders isn't high, but that requiring a cofounder might be a useful heuristic.
Additionally, it may have something to do with having the ability work with others. If you're investing in a potential company, you want the company to grow, so presumably it's not going to be a one man show forever. In this case you want to make sure that your founder can work with at least one other person.
I personally think I fall into both the bozo and the "not being able to work with others" category. If I get to the point of having a prototype, then I've unbozofied myself, and perhaps could attract a cofounder. And if the cofounder works out, then maybe I have a shot at actually working with people and consequently running a company.
Additionally, it may have something to do with having the ability work with others. If you're investing in a potential company, you want the company to grow, so presumably it's not going to be a one man show forever. In this case you want to make sure that your founder can work with at least one other person.
I personally think I fall into both the bozo and the "not being able to work with others" category. If I get to the point of having a prototype, then I've unbozofied myself, and perhaps could attract a cofounder. And if the cofounder works out, then maybe I have a shot at actually working with people and consequently running a company.
I hope someone will come to me insisting, "We should do this...," "I could do that...," "Let's try this...", etc.
I find that my customers are very good at telling me what I should do to make Tarsnap better. :-)
I find that my customers are very good at telling me what I should do to make Tarsnap better. :-)
I find that my customers are very good at telling me what I should do...
For the product, absolutely.
I was referring to how to build the business, not the product. Sorry for the confusion.
For the product, absolutely.
I was referring to how to build the business, not the product. Sorry for the confusion.
What are you working on?
A self-service application generator that non-programmers can use to build custom web apps (order processing, inventory, accounting) for small business.
You too? :) I have a slightly different focus, but I'm amazed I don't see more startups in this area. I'm very early stage, with a slightly different focus, but I'm curious now if there are other people in stealth...
that's my startup's field as well (although not point-and-click since I believe that concept has failed in the past). i suspect there are quite a few people here working on similar things, just not discussing it on HN since there is very little overlap with the target customer and therefore little insight to be gained. feel free to contact me to chat.
I find the two sources he mentions in his post rather irrelevant, given completely wrong impressions.
Firstly, the absolute number of successes is not interesting: if there 1-founder startups outnumber 2-founder startups by a factor of 10, then 1-founder startups are suddenly a lot less likely to succeed.
Secondly, both lists list not just successful, but a very limited set of extremely successful startups. These lists tell you nothing about your chances of being the next Dropbox. It's an entirely different category of companies.
Firstly, the absolute number of successes is not interesting: if there 1-founder startups outnumber 2-founder startups by a factor of 10, then 1-founder startups are suddenly a lot less likely to succeed.
Secondly, both lists list not just successful, but a very limited set of extremely successful startups. These lists tell you nothing about your chances of being the next Dropbox. It's an entirely different category of companies.