3 ms·
If they have the money to hire a full-time employee, how will it be different than having a tech-co-founder do the job ? (Its cheaper equity wise) In other wo
by Murkin 16y ago
If they have the money to hire a full-time employee, how will it be different than having a tech-co-founder do the job ?
(Its cheaper equity wise)
In other words, what can a co-founder do that an employee cant ?
- seiji 16y agoMake executive decisions with full autonomy.
- dustyreagan 16y agoThat power can be delegated to an employee.
- pmjordan 16y agoOnly if the employee is very good and sufficiently dedicated to stand up against decisions by the founder(s) which are bad for technical reasons. It's hard enough for us techies to hire people like that; for non-techies it's basically a lottery. And that's if they don't actively select for the wrong traits. It's likely they'll focus on people who talk the talk, do as they're told, or have a business background but have dabbled with some techy stuff, etc.
- petervandijck 16y agoNot in my experience, an employee (non-cofounder) will never stand up to your dumb ideas like a co-founder will.
- ktsmith 16y agoIt may not be any "different" to have a co-founder vs an employee in day to day operations. It may however be impossible to find someone sufficiently skilled to complete the job and yet dumb enough to not feel they are bringing more value to the business than simply a salary is worth.
- nostrademons 16y agoThey have skin in the game and a strong incentive to do really hard things to make the business succeed. Many of the innovations that'll ultimately make you stand out from the crowd are very, very difficult to implement. If the difference between implementing that and implementing the same 80/20 solution as everyone else is, say, getting a $150k/year salary instead of a $100K/year salary, they're not going to bother. If the difference is cashing out with $20M vs. ending up with nothing, they will bother.