3 ms·

We don't. We think it's much better if cofounders have some sort of shared history together.

by sama 11y ago

neolefty 11y ago
I think you should try grouping random individuals as an experiment. They should each already have a project, and be capable of implementing it, but obviously they'll have to choose one when they get together. My two most successful lab final projects in college were randoms. One of them won the annual award for best undergrad lab project, and the other won the in-course competition. These were late-course groupings, after as many as half of each class's starting participants had already dropped out, so it was already pretty selective. Bad: We didn't know each other ahead of time. There were always weaker and stronger participants. In one 4-person team, one teammate just completely flaked, but the rest of us stepped up. Good: We didn't have relationship baggage that could have come from partnering with friends on a very stressful project. I think it really helped us focus on the projects. We were thrilled with any success. I used to think it was just good luck finding outstanding teammates. But perhaps it was because they had already independently made it through the hard first half of the course without having close friends also enrolled in the class. As a counter-datapoint, another course had a lottery-based grouping, with no pre-harrowing, and my teammates and I never gelled.
- keithwhor 11y ago
  My understanding (anecdote from a YC founder I spoke with) is that they tried this one year, and generally the outcomes weren't favorable. Startups are fucking hard. A lot harder than school projects. And they last way longer. There are millions of dollars on the line and people's livelihoods. The people who run them, by nature, have a level of intensity that acts as an amplifier for wins and losses. When you meet somebody, it can take a few months before they let their guard down and begin falling back into their "normal" behavioral patterns. Best case scenario, they were a pretty honest and secure person and not much changes (but maybe they're bad at remembering to clean their dishes). Worst case scenario, they miss a deadline, blame everyone around them and punch holes in walls. Likely somewhere in between the two extremes. "Emotional baggage" of past relationships is a good thing, because it equates to trust, as long as the people are willing to work together. You usually have baggage because you've seen somebody at their worst. If you're still willing to stick around, that's telling. It means you have a better chance of being able to get through the next thing, and the one after that... and so on.

We don't. We think it's much better if cofounders have some sort of shared history together.

by sama 11y ago

We don't. We think it's much better if cofounders have some sort of shared history together.

I think you should try grouping random individuals as an experiment. They should each already have a project, and be capable of implementing it, but obviously they'll have to choose one when they get together. My two most successful lab final projects in college were randoms. One of them won the annual award for best undergrad lab project, and the other won the in-course competition. These were late-course groupings, after as many as half of each class's starting participants had already dropped out, so it was already pretty selective. Bad: We didn't know each other ahead of time. There were always weaker and stronger participants. In one 4-person team, one teammate just completely flaked, but the rest of us stepped up. Good: We didn't have relationship baggage that could have come from partnering with friends on a very stressful project. I think it really helped us focus on the projects. We were thrilled with any success. I used to think it was just good luck finding outstanding teammates. But perhaps it was because they had already independently made it through the hard first half of the course without having close friends also enrolled in the class. As a counter-datapoint, another course had a lottery-based grouping, with no pre-harrowing, and my teammates and I never gelled.

keithwhor 11y ago
My understanding (anecdote from a YC founder I spoke with) is that they tried this one year, and generally the outcomes weren't favorable. Startups are fucking hard. A lot harder than school projects. And they last way longer. There are millions of dollars on the line and people's livelihoods. The people who run them, by nature, have a level of intensity that acts as an amplifier for wins and losses. When you meet somebody, it can take a few months before they let their guard down and begin falling back into their "normal" behavioral patterns. Best case scenario, they were a pretty honest and secure person and not much changes (but maybe they're bad at remembering to clean their dishes). Worst case scenario, they miss a deadline, blame everyone around them and punch holes in walls. Likely somewhere in between the two extremes. "Emotional baggage" of past relationships is a good thing, because it equates to trust, as long as the people are willing to work together. You usually have baggage because you've seen somebody at their worst. If you're still willing to stick around, that's telling. It means you have a better chance of being able to get through the next thing, and the one after that... and so on.