
The Case for Single Founder Startups - rgrieselhuber
http://www.readwriteweb.com/start/2010/09/the-case-for-the-single-founde.php
======
antileet
I actually set out looking for a co-founder a few months ago when I was
starting to build the product. Since most of my friends went to big-name jobs
right after graduation, nobody was particularly keen on starting up.

I hit up all the networking events - barcamps, startup events, and other
miscellaneous meetups. I met a lot of people, offered to buy them beer in
exchange for hearing out my idea, and made some great friends. The people who
were capable and experienced were already in a job, or a startup of their own.
The ones who were interested to join me were ready to do it part-time and half
heartedly. The two people who were enamored by the idea and wanted in couldn't
code for nuts.

Two months later, I am still single, two weeks away from launch, and things
are going great. I have some unconventional little discoveries by my tiny
amount of experience:

1\. Go somewhere you'll be surrounded by people. I went back to college and
have friends all around. In the event that I get bored or need to take a
break, a coffee break with five people is just a phone call away.

2\. I realized that it's hard to stay fully motivated through the entire
thing. Talk to your friends and family about it and tell them it'll take their
help. My parents were extremely helpful, and my mother patiently used to
listen to my ideas, even though she couldn't really understand what an alpha
release is.

I actually found some minor advantages of being a single founder. For instance
- you get the flexibility to travel around and relocate if you want. But the
disadvantages far outweigh the advantages.

In programmerspeak - I felt being a single founder instead of having a co-
founder is somewhat like writing a web application in C++ instead of Rails.
It's harder, though not impossible. And you learn a lot more about yourself
and your limits.

------
johnglasgow
I founded a company with my twin brother which is a unique situation since we
often act as one person. So we get the best of both worlds in a way.

However, I can't imagine starting a company alone. The roller coaster ride is
very tough at times, and we somehow rotate picking each other up during
difficult periods.

Starting a company with someone is like marriage, but you don't really have a
method to get divorced. A few comments mention meeting people at events to
start a company with them, but I'd be careful with that. I know a founder who
recruiters his co-founders that way and he has already fired 3 of them.

------
chrischen
Not having a co-founder isn't usually a choice. But if not having a co-founder
stops you from doing what you want, then that's a choice. You should always
keep going and make the best of your situation, co-founder or not.

~~~
kranner
Agreed. I struggled to make things work with my ex-co-founder for three months
before deciding to go solo. It's working out just fine.

Everyone will tell you you can't do it alone. I'd modify that a little: don't
do it alone if you have a choice. Otherwise, go right ahead. Be your own data
point.

------
inovica
I have been (and am) a single founder and also have been a co-founder in the
past.

From my perspective the positives of having a co-founder include the
motivation at the early stages, when there's just a couple of you. Tasks can
be handed off easily, based on skill-set and it can help to accelerate the
start-up. In my own experience, the negatives can be a vision/goal that is
different to what you thought it was at the start (despite a lot of talking
about it) and also sometimes the partners (ie girlfriends/wives) can have a
direct impact on relationships. Its also easier I think to start with a co-
founder as you feel you have someone to 'share' decisions with, though in my
experience this can sometimes slow down decisions. As a single founder you
make a decision quickly and move on.

Now that I've had a few businesses over the last 15 years I much prefer to be
a single founder. I hire in the talent that I don't have and this means that I
can be more agile with what I do.

There is NO right or wrong answer here. It's whatever is the best fit for you
as a person and for the business.

------
zmmmmm
Got to agree with this:

> But Grieselhuber argues that entrepreneurs should worry less about having
> "everything perfectly meet other people's criteria," and instead focus on,
> to quote Nike, "just doing it."

One thing that will definitely kill your startup faster than not having a co-
founder is if you never attempt it because you can't find a co-founder. Like
it or not, good co-founders are rare people and ones who will come on board
with somebody who has nothing to show are even rarer. So just do it. Keep
looking for a co-founder, for sure, but part of finding one is _just getting
on with it_.

------
jfi
My hat is off to you and you make a good point that you can act autonomously
and you didn't waste time searching for a co-founder.

While going solo does have these benefits, I personally think that lasts only
so long before you start to miss out on the benefits of having a co-founder
working along side you. You will fight, argue, and yell at each other for
sure, but you'll also collaborate, pick up each others spirits when times are
tough, and have a more diverse set of skills that pack your startup's talent
portfolio.

In general, if you can start out working alone and get as much done as you
have, then by all means do it; but I'd be on the look out for someone that
compliments you and can help propel your company forward that much faster.
Don't force the connection, but don't take the mind set that "I've come this
far alone, I don't need anyone else" either.

~~~
rgrieselhuber
That's one thing that I think needs to be explained a little better. I'm
always open to working with somebody else and will be hiring at some point.

The point is that by deciding to just do it on your own if you don't have a
co-founder is you remove a factor that you have little control over anyway and
can focus on things you can control.

------
p01nd3xt3r
I am a part time single founder of www.socialadmanager.com and a part-time co-
founder (adult site). I have found that it helps not only in terms of working
on the product at a faster pace but things just get done at a must faster pace
in general as a single founder.

As a single founder if users are complaining about something then I am the
only one there to fix it so the most important things (the ones being bitched
about the most) always get done first and if it needs to be implemented as a
product feature I don't have to discuss things with people like i do at work.

At work everyone wants to feel as if their opinion matters even if it does
not. We have to get a consensus on things and trade emails, phone calls, text
messages etc... just to get a simple feature out the door or any similar task.

I can just get in and fucking do it. We spend so much time at work justifying
shit to morons that want to play devils advocate or salesmen that are asking
for random things that they don't even really understand.

As a single founder when I develop I keep in mind that I will need to maintain
and manage this feature myself so it is mandatory that all features have
proper test and administration tools that facilitate this. Then if and when
something happens I can quickly deal with it and move on to something else.

At work I am usually outvoted since we all agreed to do "group product
development" (Note: this was done to ensure the authenticity of the site
within its niche (xxx)). Even though I make sure we have test the maintenance
portion is usually seen as a luxury so we go without until something fucks up.
At that time a day or so is spent paralyzed by indecision and a few more
asking how to fix the issue with minimal impact to users blah blah blah it
eventually gets done but its never smooth.

Oddly enough I think that one place being a single founder also helps is in
customer service. I always make sure that every one gets an answer to their
questions. And 2 (or half lol) of my agency clients actually have my cell
phone number and call me whenever they really need something important or
right now. Some people would think thats lame but what I have found is that it
makes me focus on what the most common things people call me about are and
work them into the product asap so that I don't have to be involved in the
task.

Anyway... this is just my two cents.

------
annajohnson
The success of a venture is going to have much more to do with WHO starts the
company than whether or not there is one or more of them. Look at history and
we see all kinds of successful companies that were started by sole founders on
the one hand and more than one founder on the other. Maybe there is a
statistical likelihood of a company being more successful if there is more
than one founder... but no entrepreneur in their right mind is going to base
their decisions on those kinds of stats. So much depends on the unique
circumstances that you find yourself in. I particularly like this quote:

'But Grieselhuber argues that entrepreneurs should worry less about having
"everything perfectly meet other people's criteria," and instead focus on, to
quote Nike, "just doing it."'

------
ndl
Investors frequently look to others for votes of confidence in a potential
deal, whether it's PG wanting multiple-person teams or VCs who close when
other VCs take an interest. The "vote of no confidence" argument is for why
having multiple founders is an indicator of success but does not directly
imply causality.

There are plenty of actual reasons why multiple founders would be a cause of
success, but they rest entirely on having the right cofounder:

* Having a cofounder keeps you committed, if your cofounder is committed.

* A startup is a ton of work. Make sure your cofounder understands this from the beginning. Especially watch out for the chicken/pig situation.

* A startup is an emotional roller coaster, so make sure you surround yourself with people who will hold you up. Actively avoid anyone who creates excess negativity or drama.

This all seems obvious now, but I made the mistake of being too careless/lax
with all three of these points. The temptation is to assume that you will work
things out. Trust, but verify, preferably before you put in time and money.

Now I'm a single founder. I'm looking for a cofounder but am rather picky. If
I miss my chance at YC funding due to lack of partner, I have other options.
If I were to rush the process and take on a bad relationship, it would
probably doom the venture.

------
dotBen
Interesting but it's a shame that R/WW only dedicates a few lines to this. I'd
have loved to have scratched beneath the surface to discover more about how
the founder balances dev tasks and admin, and also stuff like product
acceptance testing if he is also the engineer building it.

I'm not ratting on R/WW per se but I am disappointed by the 'bare minimum'
blogging to just rack up a page impression rather than deliver an insight.

~~~
rgrieselhuber
I've written about some of this before ([http://ginzametrics.com/the-royal-we-
single-founder-startups...](http://ginzametrics.com/the-royal-we-single-
founder-startups.html)) but you bring up a good point as a lot of making this
work is a balancing act. I'll write something up when I get a chance.

~~~
skowmunk
Beautifully put and written. Thanks for sharing your experiences.

I agree about the idea generation (along with the rest of the article), its
not as tough as one thinks it out to be. Being open to more information from
whatever source one can get it from, books, videos, customers, friends, etc is
the first step in idea generation.

This is the way I like to put it:

Given the same level of creativity or intelligence, a person with more
information can come up with more ideas than the one with less information.

Another way I like to put it (my 'understanding' of how to increase the rate
of innovation):

If a hypothetical innovation/solution (idea) needs 10 points of information
(now don't take the 'points' in a literal sense, its a metaphor) connected in
a particular pattern (the points together with the pattern, constituting the
'idea/innovation/solution'), given two people or teams with equal intelligence
or creative capability, the team which already has 8 points of information
will have a better chance of making that innovation or finding that solution
than the team with just 5 points of information.

Because the first team/person has to creatively find out where or what just
the other 2 points are while the second team has to creatively find out about
those 5 missing points. The odds are definitely in favor of the team with 8
existing points of information and just 2 missing points.

Of course, this is a theory/principal that assumes equality of all other
resources to make a point.

End of the day, information rules.

------
mgkimsal
Was reading pg's comments about single founders:

"What's wrong with having one founder? To start with, it's a vote of no
confidence. It probably means the founder couldn't talk any of his friends
into starting the company with him. That's pretty alarming, because his
friends are the ones who know him best."

Someone else mentioned it on this thread, but I'll expound. The majority of
good solid people who are _capable_ of being 'co-founders' of something are
likely already doing it. 'Capable' has many dimensions - financial stability,
personal drive, motivation, risk tolerance, etc. This notion of 'get your
friends to join you' is extremely narrow, and while this may be how life in
the Valley is, I can assure you it's not like that in most of the country
where the rest of us live.

Also: "And you learn a lot more about yourself and your limits." That's right.
One of the things that happens with 'co-founder' situations is that you're
both learning about yourselves _and_ each other at the same time. Taking on a
'co-founder' who's "good with sales" - unless there's a demonstrable (and
ideally _long_ ) track record is essentially a _huge_ gamble, as both of you
are making a guess about someone's ability. Personally, I tend to discount
anyone's self-estimate about their own ability - show me the track record.

As for the other comment about 'only being able to do so much on your own' -
that's what hiring other people is all about. I understand there's not always
money up front to do that. But I'd say you'll be in a much better position to
contract out the bits you can't do, either at a reduced rate or some sort of
time-limited profit sharing, but in no way just bring someone on as a 'co-
founder'. If they are truly starting at the beginning, that's different, but
bringing someone on after you've done much of the hard work - nope. Yes, you
might not be able to find quality talent, but you couldn't find it in the
beginning anyway.

My own view is I'd be much more likely to want to work with someone after
they've demonstrated the ability to do something on their own which produces
revenue (or something insanely innovative from a technology viewpoint that I
grok instantly and see a distinct vision for, but that's not crossed my path
yet). If you've got 'a cool idea', and want me to come on board as a 'co-
founder' and do all the hard tech work, and you've never sold anything to
anyone, and want to veto every suggestion I have, we're not co-founders -
you're looking for hired help. And that's fine, but the hired help need to be
paid.

I've been approached numerous times over the past few years about coming on as
a 'technical cofounder'. Only once did someone even have a proof of concept
put together that was demonstrating the idea in rough form (including a
revenue stream, however meager it was). In all other cases, the execution onus
is entirely on me, and in every case, there were some rather odd directions
people wanted to move in. When questioned, in every case the 'founder' (who
hadn't done anything except float an idea by people) was adamant that the
vision was great and couldn't be changed. And without me (or someone) it
couldn't be executed, but that point seemed to be lost. It seemed people I was
talking to would generally rather have 100% control of an idea rather than,
say, 80% control over an actual working service/product. Maybe my experiences
are radically different from others who get approached about being 'co-
founders'?

Short view - I agree with the notion of 'DIY' as far as you can as a single
founder in your enterprise before you start looking for help. With the luxury
of some initial success behind you, you'll be in a much better bargaining
position when bringing help on board in whatever capacity (paid, equity, etc).

~~~
rgrieselhuber
One thing that is worth mentioning about pg because he is brought up in these
conversations: many investors talk about investing in the team and not the
product, but this is often just lip service.

PG not only actually invests in people, but is also willing to overlook his
own criteria when he finds people he believes in. It's one of the things that
really sets him apart.

~~~
kranner
Being willing to overlook your own criteria is normally just plain
inconsistent.

~~~
skowmunk
I am big fan of consistency (not saying I am), makes for great team members,
employees and advisors.

But consistency with no regards to the outcome or circumstances, thats plain
crock!

~~~
kranner
Of course. What I meant was: when a rule no longer applies, remove it and
declare so publicly.

~~~
skowmunk
I would say that _every_ rule has exceptions. And the degree of exceptions to
each rule may vary from rule to rule. But if one were to eliminate all rules
that has at least one scenario where it could be considered as an exception,
this world would have no rules at all.

If one were to make a list of all scenarios where a one line rule has
exceptions, one would have long documents like 'Terms and conditions' instead
of easy to comprehend one line rules that would provide reasonable guidance in
a majority of situations.

Thats why it is good to apply a bit of wisdom in applying a rule/advice to a
scenario and see if that rule applies to that situation or not, irrespective
of from whom that advice comes from and not follow them blindly.

------
sdrinf
Coming from an engineering perspective, finding a suitable "business-side"
person is extremely harder, than the other way around, for the simple reason
of track record.

How do you measure someone's ability to actualize a business? By observing the
previous businesses he made, annual turnover, profit, and exit.

Someone already having any of these is extremely unlikely to be looking for a
"technical co-founder" -he will be looking for employees.

Thus, everyone touting themselves as a "business guy looking for co-founder"
has an extreme likelihood of unvalidated track record, and by very definition,
an unqualified candidate for co-founding.

I'm very open taking suggestions on how to tackle this problem, other than
taking random lottery tickets -my current solution is working alone, but it's
massively sub-optimal.

~~~
pseudopattern
Thinking about a potential partner this way is an enormous category error.
Lot's of people that have made it and wasted huge amounts of time and money
trying to do it again, neglecting luck and other things that gave them their
fortune (not to discount the skill that went into making it).

There are far more charismatic people then there are people worth 10s of $M.
Finding a person that is passionate about what you are doing is far more
valuable than trying to get a mister money bags to carry you for your first
foray into serious business.

~~~
sdrinf
By no means am I looking for "money bags to carry me"; neither would this be
my "first foray into serious business".

However, you are asking me here to give up the primal discipline of
meritocracy -evaluating plans, ideas, thoughts based upon demonstrated /
actualized intelligence, and merit - in exchange for charisma -the ability of
persuasion.

For that, I call BULLSHIT: based on my previous data points, the highest
probability of root reason you're asking me this, is to make way for a hidden
agenda of yours (or people like yourself). And for that, you deserve a public
bozo bit.

~~~
pseudopattern
Ask your dr about xanax at the soonest possible hour. I have no interest in
collaboration with a mad man.

------
benologist
I think multiple founders vs. single is extremely overrated. It's a lot of
work for sure, and I have to go outside my comfort zone pretty often, but I
bet that's true for startups with 2 or 3 founders too.

------
mhd
I've read the original article, and (as with lots of YC/PG stuff) it mostly
applies to a certain type of startups. Yes, you probably won't have a billion
$ "exit strategy" if you start your bootstrapped small-time business as a
single founder in Podunk. But I don't see a reason why every entrepreneur
should aim to be the next Oracle, Google or Facebook. You can always be the
equivalent to your local small time business or even Mom & Pop shop. I'm a bit
disappointed with the widespread use of the "Think Big!" philosophy,
especially when it's presented as the only way. (And no, I don't even think
that PG sees this as the only way. I'm just noting a certain bias I often see
when the word "startup" gets tossed around.)

Never even mind the US centrism of that mindset…

~~~
skowmunk
There is nothing wrong with wanting to be a small set up if one is comfortable
with that set up. But if the idea of somebody who wants to keep it small is
really good, even if he wants to keep it small there may be soon competitors
who are ready to copy the idea, put more money and send the small shop to
kingdom come.

Sometimes, nay, I change it to every time (especially in the tech industry)
size is the best defense against competition (Actually it is size and what
advantages it brings along with it)

For a company with a really good idea, if it does not grow really fast enough,
it soon becomes blood for the sharks, not the future shark.

Thats the beautiful thing about Google, they so quickly executed the finance
aspects (book building IPO), the people aspects (freedom to experiment and
generate ideas, free food) and the monetizing aspects (search based ads) of
their business, to enable them to keep growing at a breath taking speed. If it
hadn't and just kept growing at an attractive pace, but not a furious pace,
they would have been bought of by some other tech biggie or attracted more
serious competition long back.

And whats wrong with the adage "Aim for the stars and you can at least fall on
the moon" (or something like that)

------
robryan
From my small amount of personal experience thus far I have to say that a co-
founder is tremendously helpful as a sounding board, someone that lives and
understands the product as much as you do debate various features and discover
hard to track down bugs or architecture problems.

At different stages so far we would have been setting ourselves up for big
problems down the line if not for things we caught discussion the product with
each other. So you can get a lot of outside opinion and advice but it doesn't
really compare to having someone who spends just as long as you wrapping their
heads around exactly how it works and where we are at.

To be fair I don't have any real experience as a single founder on something
of a similar scale to see both sides of the fence.

------
skowmunk
Thanks for posting it. It was morale boosting for me as I am currently a
single founder. Does give me hope in spite of the heavy odds I know that are
against me :) ( at least with respect to YC funding, not for the long term
prospects though)

I do agree that one can't wait to build the perfect team to start a project.
If one knows enough experts experts in the required domains for the project,
has good working rapport with them, by all means build a team with them. But
if you don't know such people, then just get on with it. You will likely meet
such experts at least for your next project if not for the current project

At the same time, from experience, I would have to agree with the Big P, that
he is right about the chance of success being low for single founders.
(Provided it is not an absolute statements and is instead a generality, there
are _alwasy_ exceptions)

Startups require lots of decisions that can make or break a company if not
done right, often done very fast. And the right decisions are mostly a result
of comfort or reasonable enough grasp of different domains such as finance,
technology, programming, customers/marketing, to just name a few, and applying
loads of common sense on that grasp.

Its very rare to have one person who has enough of a grasp on these different
domains to not just be comfortable making decsions on them quickly enough and
under ennormous stress, but keep making GOOD decisions critical to the
sustainance and growth of the company. Yes, one can learn them fast, but then
its a matter of can one person learn them fast and deep to keep making
continuously quick and reasonably good decisions while still working on the
development.

Thats why teams can often be more successful. Teams can access expertise on
differnt domains of differnt team members(if that was the basis of builing the
said team). Even if they do not have the domain expertise, the learning can be
delegated to different team members and more can be covered than one person
can. And there is nothing more beautiful or capable than a highly integrated
and coordinated team that can move and react together to changing
circumstances and keep delivering.

But thats just one side of the team coin. Along wtih bringing strengths to a
team, team members also bring their weaknesses to a team. Unless the team has
a way to deal with those weaknesses or have enough rapport with each other to
recognise those weaknesses and find solutions to them, the weaknesses can just
outweigh the strengths causing the failure of that team.

Not to mention, what about the other dynamics, ifs and buts that a team brings
in? Do they really have one unified vision that they can stick to inspite of
ups and downs? Can they stick together when the vision has to be modified? And
so on...

I wonder, if PG and the team at YC, have any metrics/analysis on how many of
the past founder teams have failed due to bad team dynamics inspite of great
ideas.

(Feeling sheepish for the long post, Couldnt' help expressing myself on this
topic)

------
lzw
I've done both. It is better to go single than have a founder who isn't in
sync. If you can find a founder who is in sync with you, that is best. But
most of the startups I've seen fail, even though the blame was placed
elsewhere, really boiled down to conflict between founders. No market fit?
Because the founders couldn't agree to listen to the market. Etc. Etc.

