

Ask HN: Horror co-founder stories. - kimcheeme

Anyone have stories on nasty co-founding team relationships and&#x2F;or recommendations on what to look for in a co-founder?
======
jt2190
I had a friend who would "test" girlfriends by taking them camping for a few
days.

Camping or other intense travel that raises the level of discomfort (no
running water/flush toilets/electricity/internet/air conditioning etc.)
reveals someone's true nature very quickly. You'll see whether they get cranky
or stay optimistic, whether they're disorganized or not, whether they carry
more or less of their fair share of the load, whether they get on your nerves,
etc.

~~~
wfn
If this happens organically, then that's one thing (e.g. going on a
hitchhiking/whatever journey for two weeks or more, etc. - it does kind of
work (get to know person as side effect, and so on)); but _institutionalizing_
it (so to say) just sounds shitty.

Maybe because the person doing the 'test' would always (at the back of their
mind, etc.) know that it was being done deliberately. And this kind of
informational asymmetry is, simply put (imho), not ethical. (Nor does it sound
sexy or spontaneous or groovy or really interesting.)

~~~
stfu
I think the difference between male and female "testing" is often just in the
rationalizing process e.g. if you were approached by girls since the age of 12
you would have established by now unconsciously some "filters".

~~~
wfn
Sure, but i think there's a nontrivial difference between these kinds of
(usually) spontaneous and (often/usually) unconscious filters, vs. a whole
streamlined _process_ (which takes a longer time; though it does yield more
information, as a rule (imo.))

Then again, maybe this is just, uh, institutional ludditism ;) (i.e., everyone
has their own process, some have simply _industrialized_ it a bit (e.g. for
want of a more spontaneous set of filters, as you said.) But this metaphor
probably doesn't work that well.)

~~~
mercer
I agree that it's a nontrivial difference, but I don't know if one approach is
better than the other. It's something that has been on my mind a lot.

I studied marketing (among other things), and it's essentially the study of
manipulating people to achieve a desired effect. And while I noticed that
_knowledge_ about manipulation doesn't automatically translate to a _practice_
of manipulation/persuasion (in the same way that knowing a lot about addiction
might not shield you from being an addict), having this knowledge, at least
for me, feels like an uncomfortable responsibility.

Take approaching a potential romantic interest. There are some very effective
techniques to increase your chances of 'success' (however you would define
it). We generally frown upon doing this (too) explicitly; it very quickly
seems sleazy. And yet 'womanizers' (or the opposite equivalent) apply these
techniques without really thinking about it and we don't judge these people as
strongly.

Is this unfair? If someone who is naturally less skilled at flirting uses
'techniques' to do better, is that worse than someone who does this naturally,
assuming that in both individuals have the same 'pure' (or 'impure') goals? Or
is it perhaps better because the individual in question is at least conscious
of his persuasion or manipulation, and can question his motives?

I think about that a lot, and I haven't found an answer yet.

For me personally, I'm lucky, in a way, that I feel guilty very quickly. I
simply cannot lie very well, for example, not because I cannot lie, but
because I have trouble facing myself when I do so. So I try not be too
conscious about manipulation and persuasion. And yet I know that applying
well-tested techniques is very effective.

If anyone here can point me to literature on this subject (I suppose it's a
matter of ethics), I'd greatly enjoy exploring that.

~~~
wfn
Yes, I see your point. Or at least, this made me re-think things that I've
also been considering, namely: this kind of 'shunning'/etc. of explicit
techniques is a biased selector of certain kinds of people (natural
womanizers, whoever.) Hence the resulting ethical framework is not as
egalitarian as it may appear to be on first glance.

> _Or is it perhaps better because the individual in question is at least
> conscious of his persuasion or manipulation, and can question his motives?_

That's also a fair point, it makes a certain amount of sense.

Again and again I wonder how much of our ethics is derived from 'folk
psychology' which is itself biased towards 'intuitive' behaviours (whatever
they may be; but in this case it would e.g. include unconscious/natural
flirting, whatnot), and is biased against 'uncanny valley' reflexive
mindstates (e.g. "i am aware `(that she is aware that i am aware)^n` that i am
currently deliberately employing subtext in the current dialogue", etc.)

..and this could simply be a kind of _aesthetic_ bias (that might make sense
for us, humans), but whether it says anything about _ethics_ is a wholly
different question, say.

..this might have been a bit of a ramble. Interested in pointers towards
literature, too.

~~~
mercer
> ..and this could simply be a kind of aesthetic bias (that might make sense
> for us, humans)

I think that sounds very plausible. We generally don't seem to like it when
someone 'pulls aside the curtain' when it comes to things that _feel_ hard to
control or define.

For example, the best way to escalate a fight is to say something like "are
you on your period?" or "did you not get enoug sleep last night?" They are
perfectly valid questions in themselves, but asking them (assuming you mean
well, of course) is not a good idea.

It makes sense that our minds don't like being treated like the often
irrational, physical organs that they really are.

For example, while I feel perfectly comfortable treating a 'physical' headache
with pills, I feel much less comfortable taking medication that alters my mood
(although doing so for fun, and being 'in control' makes it significantly more
acceptable).

~~~
wfn
Yes indeed, and now I recall my curiosity about the fact that kissing with our
eyes open doesn't really work (in most cases / as a rule, etc.) You can't
really explain it away by saying that 'one needs to divert (cognitive,
whatever) resources from the eyes / visual stimuli': there's a specific kind
of eeriness that is sometimes present, etc. Very interesting.

------
cachebunfield
I have a story in the making that I hope will have a happy ending.

I started a company with two of my good friends whom I also happen to be
living with at the moment. We're profitable and growing, but that doesn't mean
we don't have problems. I am the technical co-founder while the other two
handle operations and the business development side. However, they seem to be
just going with the flow while I on the other hand am pouring my blood, sweat,
and tears into this company. And I feel my work isn't being respected because
they have unrealistic demands and sometimes complain about things not working
or things not being done while they on the other hand aren't making any effort
to see how they can help. It's easy for them to just delegate their tasks to
our assistants but for my work, it isn't so easy. They should be hustling and
trying to grow the company with their free time, but they aren't. My
resentment has been growing against them and lately it's been putting a strain
on our relationship. I think us starting out as friends has made us avoid
talking about the deep issues that underly this predicament. In the end, I
can't do this without them and they can't do it without me. How can I approach
this situation? The obvious answer is to sit down, talk, and make my issues be
known but before I do that, I need some good advice.

I also want to mention our equity is split three ways evenly with no vesting.

~~~
vecter
Please please please communicate with your co-founders! Communication is
absolutely necessary for your continued survival and success. Do _not_ avoid
talking about the issue because it's uncomfortable. Rather, you need to face
it head on.

My co-founders and I are constantly discussing uncomfortable but important
company issues. We've built up enough trust such that we understand everyone
has the company's best interests in mind. Sometime we get upset while having
these conversations, but the long term result is always better.

We also have regular 1-on-1s with all of our employees, and one uncomfortable
question we always ask them is: "what is the worst part about working here?"
Then, we fix it. Our rational is that if we can always fix everyone's worst
problem, then everyone will be very happy in the long term.

On a semi-related note, I'm sorry to hear that your co-founders aren't working
as hard as you. That's unfortunately a terribly common issue, and it's
exacerbated by the fact that they don't appreciate the technical work that you
do. I wish there was some easy way to fix that, but I fear that that along
with the lack of communication among you will spell doom for your company.

------
bksenior
In my experience the important things are:

1\. Do they proactively do the tedious stuff when things aren't exciting?
Passion waxes and wanes and good co-founders dig deep and push through the
bottoms of the motivation cycle.

2\. Would you feel comfortable with the, representing YOU if you were not
around?

3\. How quickly can you find a comfortable and systematic way to
constructively criticize one another?

There are more specific details, but these are the non-negotiables

------
olivernewth
I did a course in founder dilemmas this semester at MIT taught by Professor
Matt Marx. The recurring theme from the course was that poorly considered
early decisions could have lasting consequences. One of the main issues was
how homophilous relationships (classmates, family) between co-founders had
significantly lower success rates than non-homophilous. From this, the one
lesson I've definitely learnt is to look for someone drastically different to
myself when trying to find a co-founder. A suggested read is 'The Founder's
Dilemmas' by Noam Wasserman, full of a lot of lessons that can often be
avoided.

------
RKoutnik
Key takeaway: Ensure your cofounders are competent through third-party
verification if you can't do it yourself.

I know of company cofounded by a skilled business guy and a technical guy.
That's a fairly typical split, except the technical guy is absolutely useless.
He hasn't learned anything new since his internship days, and insisted his
code was perfect despite obvious security flaws.

The business guy just took the technical guy at his word without checking to
see if his skills really were at that level. What followed was a tremendous
waste of investor money as the technical guy insisted on doing everything his
way and creating massive loads of technical debt.

Had the business guy had an independent party verify the technical guy's
skills, he'd have saved himself $X00,000 in opportunity costs and years of his
life.

------
daSn0wie
i'd do a small throw-away project with the person before you attempt anything.
if you can complete the project, then tackle something bigger. it's like
training camp before full-season play.

~~~
Spearchucker
Not always practical. I've almost completed a 7-year project and now find
myself in the unusual position of being a technical founder in search of a
non-technical co-founder. I could go out alone for sure and yet know that I'm
just not good at carving out a market for my product, no matter how good I
know it to be.

My challenge isn't knowing what to look for (if I have a skill it's reading
people) - it's finding someone suitable.

~~~
lnanek2
That doesn't mean you couldn't take a break for a hackathon, Startup Weekend,
etc. to meet and try out other people.

------
Turing_Machine
Paying attention to how the person treats the wait staff at dinner can also
give you a quick insight into their character (this works for both business
and personal relationships). Treating the waiter like scum is a gigantic red
flag, at least for me.

------
redtexture
Here's an example of non-alignment of founders, and ownership that did not
have vesting periods...with a consequence that departing partner-founders had
to deal with a major fraction of the entity owned by non-participants.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6342520](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6342520)

------
bthornbury
The ability to think independently is the key. A cofounder who is constantly
looking to you for the next step will bring you down. Look for people who have
proven track record of motivating themselves and executing their own ideas.
This does not necessarily need to be in the form of a startup.

Of course there are other things like chemistry and skill, but independent
thinking is absolutely critical.

------
EamonLeonard
What do they say? What do they do? What do other people say about them?

That will usually weed out most of the procrastinators, wannabes, "difficult"
people etc...

A bit of interpersonal chemistry going, some complimentary skills (you're
looking for compatibility, after all), and some level of emotional investment
on the problem being solved, wouldn't hurt either.

------
benhamner
Make sure you do background checks (references + backchannel).

