7 ms·
The first part of this post deserves its own discussion. Deciding who is going to lead the company is the most important conversation that founders can have in
by tchock23 15y ago
The first part of this post deserves its own discussion. Deciding who is going to lead the company is the most important conversation that founders can have in the first week (or even before starting the company). I made this mistake and my employees (and mental stability) paid dearly for the next five years.
In my case, we had an early discussion that led to an argument, and it just never resolved itself. As a result, employees never really knew who their boss was and the marketplace/customers never knew who actually led the company. No one ever had the "authority" to make the call since the founders were equals in every regard, and every decision took twice as long. Even our acquirers couldn't really figure out who did what.
I would love to see Ben (or someone here on HN) share a separate post just around this topic...
- amirmc 15y agoIf you managed to get as far as an acquisition, then it can't have been all bad. Devil's advocate: Every decision may have taken twice as long but perhaps they were better decisions as a result?
- tchock23 15y agoVery true... At times there was an advantage to having a counter point to every decision, so I admit that it wasn't all bad.