I've been at two startups, one in Boston and one in San Francisco. At the Boston startup, all the founders but one were very much 'in the trenches'; the one who

I've been at two startups, one in Boston and one in San Francisco. At the Boston startup, all the founders but one were very much 'in the trenches'; the one who wasn't was a professor splitting her time elsewhere, so it made sense. That company was ~20 people when I joined. At the SF startup, the founder was... (to avoid saying too much) alienating, though the whole company was only four people for much of the time, and never more than eight or so. In any case, the main thing I want to say is that it doesn't really matter whether they are 'in the trenches.' You are in different realms of existence if you own the company vs. work for it. As a founder, it's your personal creation; as an employee, you may care about the product, but the primary thing is your paycheck (most startup employees I've spoken with are much more mercenary with this than myself, too). You know that if it succeeds, the founder will become rich and famous and enter a social stratum that the employees will still only be able to fantasize about. No one will know their name or grant them ridiculous amounts of respect etc. Even if none of that comes to fruition, the fact that your potential courses (as they relate to the company) are so divided creates immediate present-term social distance. And you lose the sense of shared struggle—or it's at least on a much lower level. If you're all equal owners, the feeling of going to work on your shared thing must be very different, I imagine. I think it's probably also necessary to not take investment (or somehow do it in a very low pressure way), in order to have fun like the Id guys.