3 ms·

The real value of 'co-founders' is not that they're wheels in a machine, the real value is that they will tell you when you are wrong about something. I have h

by edw519 16y ago

The real value of 'co-founders' is not that they're wheels in a machine, the real value is that they will tell you when you are wrong about something. I have had co-founders disagree with me and guess what: one of us may have been right. The problem is, we never really never which. Half the time a co-founder told me I was wrong, I considered their feedback and stuck with my gut anyway. Make no mistake about it, a good give and take between co-founders is essential, but it doesn't matter which of you is right or wrong, what really matters is what your customers think. Replace "co-founder" with "customer" in the quoted sentence and then you have something there. This reminds me of the old joke about 3 baseball umpires: Good umpire: I call them as I see them. Better umpire: I call them as they are. Best umpire: They aren't anything until I call them. A single founder is the good umpire. Co-founders are the better umpire. Your customers are the best umpire.

jacquesm 16y ago
Without the feedback of my co-founders over the years I would have been stuck many times. I agree that when there is a conflict of votes (1:1 for instance) that it can get hard to manage things, but between smart adults there should be a way out of that without hurt feelings or someone being sidelined. If the dispute is over something that can be tested, test both, if the dispute is over a direction to go in pick the safe one if the risk is large, the risky one if the risk is small (and have a plan 'B') etc. Democracy is not the way to go within a company, one person gets to make the final call, who that person is should be agreed upon beforehand. If the co-founders really are on equal footing I would suggest giving 1% of the stock to an independent third party with lots of business experience. Customers are great for product feedback, they are not that helpful when it comes to choosing direction and strategy.
webwright 16y ago
I agree that the customer is the ultimate measure and I'm a fan of this whole lean startup thing. You're right that the only thing that ENDS UP mattering is what customers think. But to use that as an argument against having a co-founder seems strange. Co-founders disagreeing doesn't result in a flip of the coin to see whose opinion they go with. There's a heartfelt and intelligent discussion. Logic, experience, and a bit of intuition. One co-founder might say, "I know the team over at CompanyX who struggled with the same thing. They chose Y-- let's see how it worked out for them". If the OP had a co-founder who was smart about marketing, design, and conversion funnels-- there'd be very few arguments in those areas, but there'd sure as heck be better decisions made being there. In short, I agree with your point but I don't think it applies to this discussion.
cperciva 16y ago
Co-founders are the better umpire. Your customers are the best umpire. Indeed. Getting feedback from co-founders can be a problem if they live in the same echo chamber as you -- in contrast, as a single founder I have to listen to my customers, because they're the only people who talk to me! (I'm not saying that you shouldn't listen to your co-founders, of course. Just make sure that you don't spend so much time listening to co-founders that you end up not having time to listen to customers.)

by edw519 16y ago

jacquesm 16y ago

Without the feedback of my co-founders over the years I would have been stuck many times. I agree that when there is a conflict of votes (1:1 for instance) that it can get hard to manage things, but between smart adults there should be a way out of that without hurt feelings or someone being sidelined. If the dispute is over something that can be tested, test both, if the dispute is over a direction to go in pick the safe one if the risk is large, the risky one if the risk is small (and have a plan 'B') etc. Democracy is not the way to go within a company, one person gets to make the final call, who that person is should be agreed upon beforehand. If the co-founders really are on equal footing I would suggest giving 1% of the stock to an independent third party with lots of business experience. Customers are great for product feedback, they are not that helpful when it comes to choosing direction and strategy.

webwright 16y ago

I agree that the customer is the ultimate measure and I'm a fan of this whole lean startup thing. You're right that the only thing that ENDS UP mattering is what customers think. But to use that as an argument against having a co-founder seems strange. Co-founders disagreeing doesn't result in a flip of the coin to see whose opinion they go with. There's a heartfelt and intelligent discussion. Logic, experience, and a bit of intuition. One co-founder might say, "I know the team over at CompanyX who struggled with the same thing. They chose Y-- let's see how it worked out for them". If the OP had a co-founder who was smart about marketing, design, and conversion funnels-- there'd be very few arguments in those areas, but there'd sure as heck be better decisions made being there. In short, I agree with your point but I don't think it applies to this discussion.

cperciva 16y ago

Co-founders are the better umpire. Your customers are the best umpire. Indeed. Getting feedback from co-founders can be a problem if they live in the same echo chamber as you -- in contrast, as a single founder I have to listen to my customers, because they're the only people who talk to me! (I'm not saying that you shouldn't listen to your co-founders, of course. Just make sure that you don't spend so much time listening to co-founders that you end up not having time to listen to customers.)