7 ms·

I'll chime in here and say that reading this article sounded exactly like reading about my own 3 previous (failed) partnerships. My sole successful venture has

by regal 13y ago

I'll chime in here and say that reading this article sounded exactly like reading about my own 3 previous (failed) partnerships. My sole successful venture has been solo all along (not including employees), and has outlasted the rises and falls of the other businesses (during the amateur entrepreneur "too many fingers in too many pies" phase). I don't think I'd do a partnership again. But maybe I just don't play well with others? Anyway, can't speak for the OP, but when intelligent, ambitious friends around you see that you work your tail off and already have succeeded at building a profitable business from scratch, they suddenly get really excited about starting new businesses with you that often sound great. At least in my experience though, many of these people turn out to see themselves as "the visionary" who kinda sorta checks in from time to time and you as "the worker," which, if that isn't the role you're interested in, causes things to unravel rather fast.

ChuckMcM 13y ago
I suspect this is a key insight. There is a colloquialism for a company of people all trying to be 'the boss' called "Too many Chiefs, not enough Indians" (in reference to the tribal organization of Native American tribes, where in fact there was exactly one Chief who was the final arbiter) but another spin on this is "Too many Medicine men, not enough Indians." The "fantasy" life of a startup founder is that they see things others don't (vision) and lead people who make those visions real (workers). Except you can't really lead someone with a vision if you don't know yourself how to make that vision real. The challenges of startups are that you have to be able to "do it all" in order to know what "doing it" actually entails, then you can bring people in who can do a part of it (that you were previously doing) and know if they are doing it well or not. Folks who are visionary in their thinking but can't break that down into actionable steps toward that vision, and then break those steps into problem assignments, aren't really going to be an asset for your startup until you already have a product and a revenue stream. Even then, there is nothing more irritating to folks than a clueless visionary. Someone who says something like "The underlying problem is energy dependence, so our goal should be to provide an unlimited energy source to break that dependence, let's get some smart people working on that!" Accurate vision, but ultimately clueless, they just slow people down who have to explain the 2nd law of thermodynamics to them (if they are patient enough).
- whiddershins 13y ago
  ""(in reference to the tribal organization of Native American tribes, where in fact there was exactly one Chief who was the final arbiter)"" AFAIK absolutely false. It is also a gross generalization about a diverse group of people with differing sociopolitical structures. I would suggest reading "Empire of the Summer Moon" for an example of a famous and incredibly egalitarian American construct, or just read about Iroquois political structures via Googling, for two examples. http://www.cokesbury.com/forms/ProductDetail.aspx?pid=939760&vsl=0001 http://www.cokesbury.com/forms/ProductDetail.aspx?pid=939760... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois
  - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
    omg, secret political correctness police, please go away!
    - psycr 13y ago
      Whiddershins' comment has nothing to do with political correctness, but rather with actual historical correctness. The comment is polite, sincere, and provides a further source of information for those who seek it.
      - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
        sure it is.
      - 001sky 13y ago
        actual historical correctness This is silly and trivial. Two reasons: [1] The phrase is the analog of an idiom. It is shorthand for "hierarchy" and used as such. The parent is explaining its use. [2] There are many tribal organizations. This cuts both ways. Provided there is a single one that was historically rank-hierachical, the data is not even a counterfactual. [3] Provided [2] is ok, so is [1]. We know [2] is ok. Hence, the comment is logically ~gratuitous. See, for example: http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/too+many+chiefs+and+not+enough+indians.html http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/too+many+chiefs...
hannibal5 13y ago
If you have visionary guy in your startup, he should come with good marketing skills and that should be his main job, so that he can do what he is good at. Selling the vision to customers and investors can be very valuable. Guy who knows the product sells the vision and not the actual product can be very valuable, because the actual product is moving target anyway. "Every successful enterprise requires three men - a dreamer, a businessman, and a son-of-a-bitch." -- Peter McArthur.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
jonnathanson 13y ago
Generally speaking, it's very hard to convince the right person to co-found a startup. It's comparatively easy to convince the right-for-now person to join on a noncommittal basis. It's not easy to patiently and persistently search for the former, when the latter is so much quicker to come by. I failed at founding a startup under similar circumstances. This was back in school, on the verge of graduation, when the idea struck me and I decided to go for it. My timing was terrible, given that my would-be co-founders had full-time jobs lined up. Joining me, and turning down our various offers in pursuit of the startup, was a proposition somewhere between slightly insane and certifiably so. And so I gave everyone a pass. I "hired" a bunch of them on a part-time basis -- knowing that they'd be leaving to start their day jobs in about two months, and, therefore, inadvertently giving myself two months to generate enough traction to convince them to stick around. God, I was so naive. But I'm glad I learned the lesson at a (relatively) young age. I don't blame any of them for the failure of that short-lived startup. I blame myself. In retrospect, I realized that my own commitment to the startup had been no deeper than theirs. If it had been, I'd have hustled a lot harder to find committed co-founders.
- j45 13y ago
  Partnerships are about both timing, a good fit, and ability/willingness to commit. I've had many fail where one or the other was missing.
johnathanz 13y ago
The misconception about what a 'founder' represents is so true. I've been guilty of it myself till I spotted the danger signs (delegating too much, modelling myself after Steve Jobs with the misconception that all I have to do is have 'vision' :P). The reality is as a startup founder, you're expected to bear the blunt of the risk as well as majority of the tasks, from getting coffees, to setting 'vision', to product design, and coding the mundane that others don't want to do. To this day, I still firmly believe that (on my 1st startup, so additional mileage may change that) having a diverse skillset, or the uncompromising willingness to learn anything is key to success - guess that's what PG calls determination. So going back to the OP's view that solo founding is possible - I totally agree. You may need to hire or get help where your tech / business skills are lacking. But if you have sufficient & diverse work experience, and some financial capital, it's totally feasible to go solo. A big BUT is the emotional support that a team can offer. This is even more so when you have a solid co-founder. The trials of startups are hard and deeply emotional (I think all founders will naturally develop bi-polar disorder - one day you feel on top of the world with your world changing idea, the next you are filled with doubt), so any kind of support from people that understand what you're going through helps - this is unlikely to be your spouse if they've never been exposed to startups or even the financial burdens of brick-n-mortar business. You can substitute with meetups and surround yourself with startup founders, but someone who doesn't have skin in the game just isn't the same. TL;DR So while I think it's possible to do it alone, there are added benefits to being able to share the responsibility & emotional rollercoaster of a startup I also recommend everyone read 'Founder's Dilemma', good data backed analysis of pros & cons of various startup decisions like solo vs. co-founding. Bootstrapping vs. funding, etc.

by regal 13y ago

ChuckMcM 13y ago

I suspect this is a key insight. There is a colloquialism for a company of people all trying to be 'the boss' called "Too many Chiefs, not enough Indians" (in reference to the tribal organization of Native American tribes, where in fact there was exactly one Chief who was the final arbiter) but another spin on this is "Too many Medicine men, not enough Indians." The "fantasy" life of a startup founder is that they see things others don't (vision) and lead people who make those visions real (workers). Except you can't really lead someone with a vision if you don't know yourself how to make that vision real. The challenges of startups are that you have to be able to "do it all" in order to know what "doing it" actually entails, then you can bring people in who can do a part of it (that you were previously doing) and know if they are doing it well or not. Folks who are visionary in their thinking but can't break that down into actionable steps toward that vision, and then break those steps into problem assignments, aren't really going to be an asset for your startup until you already have a product and a revenue stream. Even then, there is nothing more irritating to folks than a clueless visionary. Someone who says something like "The underlying problem is energy dependence, so our goal should be to provide an unlimited energy source to break that dependence, let's get some smart people working on that!" Accurate vision, but ultimately clueless, they just slow people down who have to explain the 2nd law of thermodynamics to them (if they are patient enough).

whiddershins 13y ago
""(in reference to the tribal organization of Native American tribes, where in fact there was exactly one Chief who was the final arbiter)"" AFAIK absolutely false. It is also a gross generalization about a diverse group of people with differing sociopolitical structures. I would suggest reading "Empire of the Summer Moon" for an example of a famous and incredibly egalitarian American construct, or just read about Iroquois political structures via Googling, for two examples. http://www.cokesbury.com/forms/ProductDetail.aspx?pid=939760&vsl=0001 http://www.cokesbury.com/forms/ProductDetail.aspx?pid=939760... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  omg, secret political correctness police, please go away!
  - psycr 13y ago
    Whiddershins' comment has nothing to do with political correctness, but rather with actual historical correctness. The comment is polite, sincere, and provides a further source of information for those who seek it.
    - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
      sure it is.
    - 001sky 13y ago
      actual historical correctness This is silly and trivial. Two reasons: [1] The phrase is the analog of an idiom. It is shorthand for "hierarchy" and used as such. The parent is explaining its use. [2] There are many tribal organizations. This cuts both ways. Provided there is a single one that was historically rank-hierachical, the data is not even a counterfactual. [3] Provided [2] is ok, so is [1]. We know [2] is ok. Hence, the comment is logically ~gratuitous. See, for example: http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/too+many+chiefs+and+not+enough+indians.html http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/too+many+chiefs...

hannibal5 13y ago

If you have visionary guy in your startup, he should come with good marketing skills and that should be his main job, so that he can do what he is good at. Selling the vision to customers and investors can be very valuable. Guy who knows the product sells the vision and not the actual product can be very valuable, because the actual product is moving target anyway. "Every successful enterprise requires three men - a dreamer, a businessman, and a son-of-a-bitch." -- Peter McArthur.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

jonnathanson 13y ago

Generally speaking, it's very hard to convince the right person to co-found a startup. It's comparatively easy to convince the right-for-now person to join on a noncommittal basis. It's not easy to patiently and persistently search for the former, when the latter is so much quicker to come by. I failed at founding a startup under similar circumstances. This was back in school, on the verge of graduation, when the idea struck me and I decided to go for it. My timing was terrible, given that my would-be co-founders had full-time jobs lined up. Joining me, and turning down our various offers in pursuit of the startup, was a proposition somewhere between slightly insane and certifiably so. And so I gave everyone a pass. I "hired" a bunch of them on a part-time basis -- knowing that they'd be leaving to start their day jobs in about two months, and, therefore, inadvertently giving myself two months to generate enough traction to convince them to stick around. God, I was so naive. But I'm glad I learned the lesson at a (relatively) young age. I don't blame any of them for the failure of that short-lived startup. I blame myself. In retrospect, I realized that my own commitment to the startup had been no deeper than theirs. If it had been, I'd have hustled a lot harder to find committed co-founders.

j45 13y ago
Partnerships are about both timing, a good fit, and ability/willingness to commit. I've had many fail where one or the other was missing.

johnathanz 13y ago

The misconception about what a 'founder' represents is so true. I've been guilty of it myself till I spotted the danger signs (delegating too much, modelling myself after Steve Jobs with the misconception that all I have to do is have 'vision' :P). The reality is as a startup founder, you're expected to bear the blunt of the risk as well as majority of the tasks, from getting coffees, to setting 'vision', to product design, and coding the mundane that others don't want to do. To this day, I still firmly believe that (on my 1st startup, so additional mileage may change that) having a diverse skillset, or the uncompromising willingness to learn anything is key to success - guess that's what PG calls determination. So going back to the OP's view that solo founding is possible - I totally agree. You may need to hire or get help where your tech / business skills are lacking. But if you have sufficient & diverse work experience, and some financial capital, it's totally feasible to go solo. A big BUT is the emotional support that a team can offer. This is even more so when you have a solid co-founder. The trials of startups are hard and deeply emotional (I think all founders will naturally develop bi-polar disorder - one day you feel on top of the world with your world changing idea, the next you are filled with doubt), so any kind of support from people that understand what you're going through helps - this is unlikely to be your spouse if they've never been exposed to startups or even the financial burdens of brick-n-mortar business. You can substitute with meetups and surround yourself with startup founders, but someone who doesn't have skin in the game just isn't the same. TL;DR So while I think it's possible to do it alone, there are added benefits to being able to share the responsibility & emotional rollercoaster of a startup I also recommend everyone read 'Founder's Dilemma', good data backed analysis of pros & cons of various startup decisions like solo vs. co-founding. Bootstrapping vs. funding, etc.