5 ms·

I like the case you're making here, which mainly seems to be that if you're waiting around on a cofounder, you're trying to solve the wrong problem. Unless you

I like the case you're making here, which mainly seems to be that if you're waiting around on a cofounder, you're trying to solve the wrong problem. Unless you already have a potential cofounder in mind, you may be opening yourself to other problems by trying to find one (delaying the project, working with someone who turns out to be not as good as hoped, etc.). So I have to agree that your advice to just start working anyways seems quite good. That said, just tonight I was able to see what value a cofounder can have in a simple programming project for a class. I had an idea for a project, and he already had some ideas for how we could go about doing it (various machine vision algorithms). We then bounced various ideas off each other, came up with a good interface, argued a little bit about some small details, and came up with a good, shared-effort approach to tackle the problem at hand. Having a "cofounder" in this case already has proven to have a few worthwhile benefits: 1. Shared knowledge leads to less time necessary in research 2. Ability to think out loud to someone besides yourself or a pet 3. Having to work with someone forces you to come up with decent interfaces for the pieces of code, leading to more modular, maintainable code than if you just jumped in single-handedly. 4. The work is shared (duh :-) 5. If I don't feel like working on the code the day before our planned meeting, that's too bad. I'm still going to have to do it or look like an ass the next day. Maybe point number 5 is the biggest one. Inevitably, there will be stupid little stuff which is part of the project that you just don't want to do. Having someone to face at the end of the day may just be that little bit of extra motivation you need. Of course, it's still possible to do much of this stuff on your own. Being able to leverage open source libraries helps with 1 and 4, so if you can handle 2 3 and 5 on your own, then you can probably do it without a cofounder.

BitGeek 19y ago
Hey there- That's what happens when you have creative collaboration with someone. Every employee you hire should be sharp enough to be able to do so, and the good ones will be bringing ideas to you unbiden. If you've got a co-founder, great. Nothing wrong with that... its just that the idea that you need one is in error, and if you ever have to present to someone who thinks that way, your first couple of employees you can call the "Founding team" or "cofounders" or whatever you want. Its just that in order for the company to function- you need a vision and a direction. Startups too often find themselves going in circles wasting time because everyone's second-guessing everyone else... and this is more likely to happen when you have cofounders trying to reach consensus rather than a founding team with a clear leader
- BrandonM 19y ago
  I definitely see where you're coming from, and I agree to a certain extent. It's just that there are some things that an employee may not do which I cofounder would, in my own hypothetically-played-out-in-my-head scenario. 1. An employee is less likely than a cofounder to express disagreement, especially on ideas that it seems like you are "married to". 2. A cofounder is presumably completely onboard with you and the project. They are there with you from day one and feel (almost) just as strongly as you do about it. If things take a turn for the worst, they are more likely to hang on for the ride than an employee, who might elect to take up a position at a more promising-looking startup or a job with more security. 3. A cofounder is more likely to become an outside-work friend (if s/he is not one already). In general, true boss-employee friendships are hard to come by. Having a friend who completely understands the ups and downs of the project can be important psychologically and emotionally. Don't get me wrong... I agree with you that a startup can definitely be done independently by the right person. I just wouldn't agree that a cofounder is a detriment. It certainly can turn out that way, but it could also turn out that you make a lifelong friend and get that extra value that helps your startup get through the rough patches.
  - BitGeek 19y ago
    Apologies if we're stating to go in circles... 1. Not if you take them into your confidence and make them know that you value their opinion. Who doesn't want the CEO's ear? Its really all about the attitude you show them (and their personality, which is something you can select for.) 2. I think that you should hire with the same criteria and standards that you find a co-founder, and you should reward people based on their contributions. I've watched co-founders work themselves inot a cushy CTO role where all they did was go to conference and pontificate via long (never read) memos to the rest of the company, while another cofounder- the VP of engineering- did all the heavy lifting. 3. Maybe- if your cofounder is someone you knew before founding the company, then I think this is true and it could be a critical factor in the quality of that particular compnay. Like I said, if you already have a founder, or you already have someone you know who is perfect (they aren't but that you think so means they are close enough) then great- be co-founders. But the general word is- don't start a company without finding a co-founder first, and that's not right. I have worked on teams where the "boss" and the people on the team had a very healthy working friendship. This included lots of outside of work activities, generally because we were to a large extent a family. But this isn't necessarily easy, and like you say if you have a cofounder who can provide that, then it would be foolish not to start a company with them.
copenja 19y ago
Getting along with a co-founder is nothing like getting along with a partner in a class project. I have friends that I worked great with in college. They all remain my dear friends, but... after years of hacking together, and literally hundreds of thousands of lines of code, sometimes you just don't see eye to eye.. I agree a co-founder is beneficial, but it is very different then just hacking a project out with a buddy.
- rms 19y ago
  >Getting along with a co-founder is nothing like getting along with a partner in a class project. The OP compares a good cofounder to a really good relationship... it is probably not a coincidence that "partner" applies both in the sexual/societal union sense and in the business sense.
  - copenja 19y ago
    Sorry I came off harsh. I was not questioning whether a "really good relationship" was a good foundation for selecting a co-founder. I was questioning whether a one night project signifies a "really good relationship". It may or may not. I think the OP had many great insights and I enjoyed reading his post. Also, W3STS1D3 4 L1F3!!
- BrandonM 19y ago
  Well, the guy I mentioned is someone I didn't even know a week and a half ago, when I expressed to the teacher an interest in working alone. I was just saying that based on some initial work with him, my opinion had changed a little, and I could see how something similar could happen with a cofounder.

BitGeek 19y ago

Hey there- That's what happens when you have creative collaboration with someone. Every employee you hire should be sharp enough to be able to do so, and the good ones will be bringing ideas to you unbiden. If you've got a co-founder, great. Nothing wrong with that... its just that the idea that you need one is in error, and if you ever have to present to someone who thinks that way, your first couple of employees you can call the "Founding team" or "cofounders" or whatever you want. Its just that in order for the company to function- you need a vision and a direction. Startups too often find themselves going in circles wasting time because everyone's second-guessing everyone else... and this is more likely to happen when you have cofounders trying to reach consensus rather than a founding team with a clear leader

BrandonM 19y ago
I definitely see where you're coming from, and I agree to a certain extent. It's just that there are some things that an employee may not do which I cofounder would, in my own hypothetically-played-out-in-my-head scenario. 1. An employee is less likely than a cofounder to express disagreement, especially on ideas that it seems like you are "married to". 2. A cofounder is presumably completely onboard with you and the project. They are there with you from day one and feel (almost) just as strongly as you do about it. If things take a turn for the worst, they are more likely to hang on for the ride than an employee, who might elect to take up a position at a more promising-looking startup or a job with more security. 3. A cofounder is more likely to become an outside-work friend (if s/he is not one already). In general, true boss-employee friendships are hard to come by. Having a friend who completely understands the ups and downs of the project can be important psychologically and emotionally. Don't get me wrong... I agree with you that a startup can definitely be done independently by the right person. I just wouldn't agree that a cofounder is a detriment. It certainly can turn out that way, but it could also turn out that you make a lifelong friend and get that extra value that helps your startup get through the rough patches.
- BitGeek 19y ago
  Apologies if we're stating to go in circles... 1. Not if you take them into your confidence and make them know that you value their opinion. Who doesn't want the CEO's ear? Its really all about the attitude you show them (and their personality, which is something you can select for.) 2. I think that you should hire with the same criteria and standards that you find a co-founder, and you should reward people based on their contributions. I've watched co-founders work themselves inot a cushy CTO role where all they did was go to conference and pontificate via long (never read) memos to the rest of the company, while another cofounder- the VP of engineering- did all the heavy lifting. 3. Maybe- if your cofounder is someone you knew before founding the company, then I think this is true and it could be a critical factor in the quality of that particular compnay. Like I said, if you already have a founder, or you already have someone you know who is perfect (they aren't but that you think so means they are close enough) then great- be co-founders. But the general word is- don't start a company without finding a co-founder first, and that's not right. I have worked on teams where the "boss" and the people on the team had a very healthy working friendship. This included lots of outside of work activities, generally because we were to a large extent a family. But this isn't necessarily easy, and like you say if you have a cofounder who can provide that, then it would be foolish not to start a company with them.

copenja 19y ago

Getting along with a co-founder is nothing like getting along with a partner in a class project. I have friends that I worked great with in college. They all remain my dear friends, but... after years of hacking together, and literally hundreds of thousands of lines of code, sometimes you just don't see eye to eye.. I agree a co-founder is beneficial, but it is very different then just hacking a project out with a buddy.

rms 19y ago
>Getting along with a co-founder is nothing like getting along with a partner in a class project. The OP compares a good cofounder to a really good relationship... it is probably not a coincidence that "partner" applies both in the sexual/societal union sense and in the business sense.
- copenja 19y ago
  Sorry I came off harsh. I was not questioning whether a "really good relationship" was a good foundation for selecting a co-founder. I was questioning whether a one night project signifies a "really good relationship". It may or may not. I think the OP had many great insights and I enjoyed reading his post. Also, W3STS1D3 4 L1F3!!
BrandonM 19y ago
Well, the guy I mentioned is someone I didn't even know a week and a half ago, when I expressed to the teacher an interest in working alone. I was just saying that based on some initial work with him, my opinion had changed a little, and I could see how something similar could happen with a cofounder.