4 ms·
Even though the thought expressed in the post is interesting and makes sense, but calling advisors as co-founders is stretching it. Co-founder, if any, will hav
by sushrutbidwai 16y ago
Even though the thought expressed in the post is interesting and makes sense, but calling advisors as co-founders is stretching it. Co-founder, if any, will have more executive responsibilities than just making connections which is not the case with advisors. Whether involved more than once a month or not, advisors, in strict definition of advisor, do not provide any execution support.
- RobbieStats 16y agoThat's just your limited view of an advisor and one reason I suggest we call them something else. Why can't they provide "execution support". I've had several advisors work in that capacity.
- sushrutbidwai 16y agoI will prefer having co-founders instead of advisors in that case. I have advisers only because I need some one to always think about what we are doing and how we are doing it in a very objective and third-party sense. Once some one gets their hand dirty in doing it, it becomes very difficult to remain objective about it.