
My Eccentric Approach to Entrepreneurship - epi0Bauqu
http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2008/04/my-eccentric-approach-to-entrepreneurship.html
======
hugh
His first three points: "Spread risk through multiple projects and multiple
partners", "Do as much as possible myself" and "Question everything all the
time" sound like a perfect recipe for pissed-off cofounders.

I don't think I'd want to be this guy's partner if I knew that (a) he'd only
be working part-time, and when he felt like it (b) he'd insist on doing
everything himself while he was around and (c) he'd probably spend most of the
time that he was around questioning all my decisions.

~~~
epi0Bauqu
Well, I haven't had any complaints yet...

I currently have two co-founders on two different projects, and then three
projects I am doing myself (with lots of ideas bounced off my wife and other
entrepreneurs).

One of my co-founders I previously founded a different company with that was
sold to a public company. He is also currently running another business. So he
knows the modus operandi pretty well.

My other co-founder also runs another business. So there really isn't any time
resentment there either.

In answer to your points a-c:

(a) I work on all the projects all the time, at least to the extent that I am
thinking about them and coming up with ideas continuously. In other words, I
don't silo them in my head. While they are quite distinct, they all are Web
based, so there is significant useful overlap.

It's not when I feel like either. We schedule specific times to meet, discuss,
and work as needed.

(b) I don't insist on doing everything myself, but I do insist on knowing the
details of everything inside and out. That being said, on all my projects
(right now) I am the only (highly) technical person, so I naturally do all of
that stuff myself, e.g. coding/sysadmin/etc.

(c) I do question everything, but all the projects are much off better for it.

------
webwright
Doesn't seem that eccentric except the first bullet point:

"Spread risk through multiple projects and multiple partners". What happens
when one starts to take off? You'll either leave opportunity on the table or
you'll ditch your other ones (screwing all of your other "partners").

Not to mention the fact that getting a startup to ANY traction is hard enough
when you're monomaniacal about it. You think you're that much more effective
than other founders that you can pull it off part-time?

~~~
Shooter
I think people are assuming that he is working on a startup exactly like they
are (the same equity structure, type of business, roles, etc.) The author
really isn't very clear about what he contributes or how anything is
structured. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, although his second bullet
point does make me nervous. He may have a performance-based equity
arrangement...who knows? Some programmers are 10X as effective as others
supposedly, right?

"You think you're that much more effective than other founders that you can
pull it off part-time?"

Well, I do. I'm not the author, but I have a similar approach in regard to his
first bullet point. I may have a different structure (I hire employees with
equity more often than I work with 'cofounders', and I have a somewhat formal
VC-ish corporate structure with outside investors for each project, but 95% of
the software/internet related ideas we execute are mine, and I'm actively
involved in every aspect of the companies.) I think the difference between our
approach and that of most startups is related to this:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Myth> The need for 'monomaniacal' focus from
every cofounder is largely a result of having limited resources...if you can't
afford an attorney, you have to learn to do it yourself. If you can't afford a
designer, you have to learn to do it well yourself. And so on. You have to be
a Jack-of-All-Trades out of necessity.

But, once you've had a financial success or can line up backers based on your
past experience, you can focus on marketing, innovation, and strategy. You
work ON your business instead of IN your business, as the saying goes. I don't
worry about cross-browser compatibility anymore. I have an expert for that. I
don't worry about A/R, I have people for that. I don't worry about log
analysis, and so on. I'm capable of doing those things and I know what to look
for to monitor that things are running smoothly, but it is not a good use of
my resources to actually do those things. There are people that are better
than me at all of those things. I DO monitor the systems and deliverables of
my coworkers, but I don't get lost in the nitty gritty details. I work on the
things that I think matter the most for success. I occasionally do things I
shouldn't (such as write production code) because I enjoy them, but I really
wouldn't if I were optimizing everything. You'd be amazed at what you can
accomplish when you aren't bogged down in minutiae. Once you have systems in
place, you can really scale your expertise across a number of companies.

I think my employees, cofounders, and investors are happier with this
structure than they would be otherwise...but I KNOW they are wealthier because
of it.

