3 ms·

Having a cofounder is a blessing and a curse at the same time.

26 points by suurvarik 14y ago

markessien 14y ago
Not having a co-founder is worse. A short discussion with someone who understands what you are talking about can make ideas much clearer in your mind than days of thinking alone.
- suurvarik 14y ago
  There are other ways to have discussions with people who understand what you are talking about. Surronding yourself with people who share the same passion for entrepreneurship or finding a mentor.
  - rexreed 14y ago
    I've started to come to the same conclusion. After having just bought out my co-founder because he couldn't commit to the same extent as I have, I have gone back to look for a new technical "co-founder". But now I'm thinking it might just suit me better to hunker down, get stuff done and iterate the business a few pegs. That might give me enough traction to then decide to hire what's missing. I agree that surrounding yourself with good, responsive, thoughtful, and challenging mentors is a suitable alternative to a co-founder, but of course, they're not in the trenches with you, so there's no way they could truly have the same level of stress or have the same skin-in-the-game as you do. Maybe that's a plus, tho. As you can see I am torn -- stay a single founder or add to the founding team?
    - suurvarik 14y ago
      How much value could a cofounder add for you.
tferris 14y ago
It's choosing between pest and cholera. In early stages: With a cofounder you get started, carry on, have fun and soon an MVP. Without you quit days after having a first prototype (due to heavy procrastination, doubts, distractions). In later stages: With a cofounder decision-making becomes a nightmare—every other discussion ends in dramas and in grueling deadlocks. Without a cofounder life is a breeze and you can close deals in 48h (i.e. buying a photo sharing app for 1 billion). (edited first line: removed chicken and egg)
- adennis4 14y ago
  Well, first - what you described isn't a chicken and egg problem..it doesn't actually relate to this situation at all. Those are pros and cons of having a co-founder. There are a ton of reasons why a co-founder is a pain. However, the positives far outweigh any negatives...the stage of the company doesn't matter. Disagreements are valuable. The workload is simply unmanageable on your own. The road to success / failure can get really lonely without a co-founder. Building a successful company is unlikely. Building one without a co-founder...odds just got worse.
  - tferris 14y ago
    You're right, it's not chicken and egg, it's choosing between pest and cholera, I'll edit. Thanks In principle I agree with you on all your points but do not underestimate deadlocking situations in later stages. They will come, the overall situation will change a lot after time passed and thus the relation between the co-founders. And regarding successful single-founder companies: there are a lot, there just not welcome by VCs due to several reasons.
  - mkramlich 14y ago
    > The workload is simply unmanageable on your own. Disagree. You have the power to choose what the workload is as a sole founder/bootstrap. You choose the feature set. You choose what's in the next iteration. You choose how fast or slow to go. You choose your cash burn, if any. You choose how many hours to put in. You choose.... I could go on but I think you see the pattern. Anyone telling you these choices don't exist has made an incorrect assumption somewhere.
kristenlee 14y ago
I started off working on my startup as a single founder and found it enjoyable, especially the coding part. What I underestimated was the emotional challenge and that's where having a cofounder helps tremendously. I was fortunate enough to find a cofounder and while the level of stress is still high, its much easier to deal with having somebody in the trenches with you. As far as the later stages of a startup, very few startups even get to that point so I wouldn't worry so much.
- suurvarik 14y ago
  I did my first startup with a cofounder. Sold it. Starting 2012 I'm a single founder. Want the experience of doing both. For now I love it. Feels like much more freedom.
RossM 14y ago
If you're wondering why Google+ is suddenly in Estonian(?), it's because the submitter included ?hl=et on their link (remove it to get your normal language - this setting follows you around the site).
nirvana 14y ago
I've worked for a lot of startups and observed two primary causes of startup death: 1. VCs forced bad decisions on the startup. 2. Founders fought, resulting in bad decisions. I think co-founders are an improvement over single-founder, but I think there should be a primary founder, the leader, with whom the buck stops, and with whom all of the co-founders are willing to defer if they don't reach consensus. There should be a chief and indians and even if everyone starts at the same time, the relationship should be discussed and understood in advance. Much of the drama I've seen is inherent to the "Everyone is equal" perception. If you're willing to be a cofounder in this environment- where you're NOT the leader and NOT equal to the leader- then from the beginning you've agreed to subordinate your ego to some extent to the founder, and so this should remove the ego driven need to defend yourself on things that really aren't that relevant which seems to be the cause of a lot of the drama. I think PG echoed very similar sentiments in a recent interview with TC where he said he looked for teams where there was a clear leader. This fits my experience.
- tensor 14y ago
  For practical reasons there needs to be someone to break ties in decisions. However, this is different to thinking that your are somehow better than others. In business you should check your ego at the door, especially if you are in a position where you need to be the tie breaker. The idea of "everyone is equal" is to remind yourself to respect your coworkers, actually consider their inputs, and remember that you too can be just as wrong as you might think others are. The idea not "we are equal thus if we disagree then nothing happens."

26 points by suurvarik 14y ago

Not having a co-founder is worse. A short discussion with someone who understands what you are talking about can make ideas much clearer in your mind than days of thinking alone.

suurvarik 14y ago
There are other ways to have discussions with people who understand what you are talking about. Surronding yourself with people who share the same passion for entrepreneurship or finding a mentor.
- rexreed 14y ago
  I've started to come to the same conclusion. After having just bought out my co-founder because he couldn't commit to the same extent as I have, I have gone back to look for a new technical "co-founder". But now I'm thinking it might just suit me better to hunker down, get stuff done and iterate the business a few pegs. That might give me enough traction to then decide to hire what's missing. I agree that surrounding yourself with good, responsive, thoughtful, and challenging mentors is a suitable alternative to a co-founder, but of course, they're not in the trenches with you, so there's no way they could truly have the same level of stress or have the same skin-in-the-game as you do. Maybe that's a plus, tho. As you can see I am torn -- stay a single founder or add to the founding team?
  - suurvarik 14y ago
    How much value could a cofounder add for you.

tferris 14y ago

It's choosing between pest and cholera. In early stages: With a cofounder you get started, carry on, have fun and soon an MVP. Without you quit days after having a first prototype (due to heavy procrastination, doubts, distractions). In later stages: With a cofounder decision-making becomes a nightmare—every other discussion ends in dramas and in grueling deadlocks. Without a cofounder life is a breeze and you can close deals in 48h (i.e. buying a photo sharing app for 1 billion). (edited first line: removed chicken and egg)

adennis4 14y ago
Well, first - what you described isn't a chicken and egg problem..it doesn't actually relate to this situation at all. Those are pros and cons of having a co-founder. There are a ton of reasons why a co-founder is a pain. However, the positives far outweigh any negatives...the stage of the company doesn't matter. Disagreements are valuable. The workload is simply unmanageable on your own. The road to success / failure can get really lonely without a co-founder. Building a successful company is unlikely. Building one without a co-founder...odds just got worse.
- tferris 14y ago
  You're right, it's not chicken and egg, it's choosing between pest and cholera, I'll edit. Thanks In principle I agree with you on all your points but do not underestimate deadlocking situations in later stages. They will come, the overall situation will change a lot after time passed and thus the relation between the co-founders. And regarding successful single-founder companies: there are a lot, there just not welcome by VCs due to several reasons.
- mkramlich 14y ago
  > The workload is simply unmanageable on your own. Disagree. You have the power to choose what the workload is as a sole founder/bootstrap. You choose the feature set. You choose what's in the next iteration. You choose how fast or slow to go. You choose your cash burn, if any. You choose how many hours to put in. You choose.... I could go on but I think you see the pattern. Anyone telling you these choices don't exist has made an incorrect assumption somewhere.

kristenlee 14y ago

I started off working on my startup as a single founder and found it enjoyable, especially the coding part. What I underestimated was the emotional challenge and that's where having a cofounder helps tremendously. I was fortunate enough to find a cofounder and while the level of stress is still high, its much easier to deal with having somebody in the trenches with you. As far as the later stages of a startup, very few startups even get to that point so I wouldn't worry so much.

suurvarik 14y ago
I did my first startup with a cofounder. Sold it. Starting 2012 I'm a single founder. Want the experience of doing both. For now I love it. Feels like much more freedom.

RossM 14y ago

If you're wondering why Google+ is suddenly in Estonian(?), it's because the submitter included ?hl=et on their link (remove it to get your normal language - this setting follows you around the site).

nirvana 14y ago

I've worked for a lot of startups and observed two primary causes of startup death: 1. VCs forced bad decisions on the startup. 2. Founders fought, resulting in bad decisions. I think co-founders are an improvement over single-founder, but I think there should be a primary founder, the leader, with whom the buck stops, and with whom all of the co-founders are willing to defer if they don't reach consensus. There should be a chief and indians and even if everyone starts at the same time, the relationship should be discussed and understood in advance. Much of the drama I've seen is inherent to the "Everyone is equal" perception. If you're willing to be a cofounder in this environment- where you're NOT the leader and NOT equal to the leader- then from the beginning you've agreed to subordinate your ego to some extent to the founder, and so this should remove the ego driven need to defend yourself on things that really aren't that relevant which seems to be the cause of a lot of the drama. I think PG echoed very similar sentiments in a recent interview with TC where he said he looked for teams where there was a clear leader. This fits my experience.

tensor 14y ago
For practical reasons there needs to be someone to break ties in decisions. However, this is different to thinking that your are somehow better than others. In business you should check your ego at the door, especially if you are in a position where you need to be the tie breaker. The idea of "everyone is equal" is to remind yourself to respect your coworkers, actually consider their inputs, and remember that you too can be just as wrong as you might think others are. The idea not "we are equal thus if we disagree then nothing happens."