4 ms·

Businesses launched by solo founders are more successful

4 points by neurofuturo 5y ago

neurofuturo 5y ago
The conclusion of this study contradicts the usual VC mantra about the number of funders needed to succeed.
MattGaiser 5y ago
I wonder how this differs based on how teams form. Some teams are two people who have known each other for a long time and they have a pre-existing closeness. Other teams are one guy and another guy he found to do a startup with. There is no real pre-existing relationship. I saw both at an accelerator I was part of in university. Many of the teams formed for the purpose of doing startups fractured pretty easily as soon as they had diverging visions.
- neurofuturo 5y ago
  I took this path twice - started a new venture with cofounders a had no strong relationships with. In many ways it was my fault - I wanted to start so badly that I didn't care about big red flags.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
Interesting finding. I've seen a lot of co-founder situations turn sour, so I can see how the average outcome might favor solo founders. However, given the choice I'd still prefer a strong team of co-founders who can work well together over a solo founder. In order of decreasing preference, I'd want: 1) Team of equally great co-founders, preferably with a history of working well together 2) Strong solo founder who can follow through on delivery 3) Team of average or maybe unequal cofounders with a strong operating agreement to protect the company if one co-founder must be pushed out 4) Solo founder who is seeking co-founders. It's very risky to bring on random co-founders from outside of a person's network, but it's also risky for solo founders to try to build a company alone if they know they don't want to lead it alone. 5) Group of co-founders who can't work well together or don't have a strong operating agreement. A lot of post-college startups fail when 2-5 classmates try to co-found a company with different degrees of commitment. Eventually 1-2 people try to make it work and the rest are dead weight who won't give up their ownership shares. This kills the company. The real conundrum is that #1 may produce the best outcomes, but it's hardest to find. It's hard to know which co-founder teams are actually going to survive.

4 points by neurofuturo 5y ago

The conclusion of this study contradicts the usual VC mantra about the number of funders needed to succeed.

I wonder how this differs based on how teams form. Some teams are two people who have known each other for a long time and they have a pre-existing closeness. Other teams are one guy and another guy he found to do a startup with. There is no real pre-existing relationship. I saw both at an accelerator I was part of in university. Many of the teams formed for the purpose of doing startups fractured pretty easily as soon as they had diverging visions.

neurofuturo 5y ago
I took this path twice - started a new venture with cofounders a had no strong relationships with. In many ways it was my fault - I wanted to start so badly that I didn't care about big red flags.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

Interesting finding. I've seen a lot of co-founder situations turn sour, so I can see how the average outcome might favor solo founders. However, given the choice I'd still prefer a strong team of co-founders who can work well together over a solo founder. In order of decreasing preference, I'd want: 1) Team of equally great co-founders, preferably with a history of working well together 2) Strong solo founder who can follow through on delivery 3) Team of average or maybe unequal cofounders with a strong operating agreement to protect the company if one co-founder must be pushed out 4) Solo founder who is seeking co-founders. It's very risky to bring on random co-founders from outside of a person's network, but it's also risky for solo founders to try to build a company alone if they know they don't want to lead it alone. 5) Group of co-founders who can't work well together or don't have a strong operating agreement. A lot of post-college startups fail when 2-5 classmates try to co-found a company with different degrees of commitment. Eventually 1-2 people try to make it work and the rest are dead weight who won't give up their ownership shares. This kills the company. The real conundrum is that #1 may produce the best outcomes, but it's hardest to find. It's hard to know which co-founder teams are actually going to survive.