I am fascinated by the work of Paul Graham. He changed the way we build startups, but that does not mean I agree with everything he writes. His opinion of solo founders is one of them.
PG argues that:
1) A founder starting a company alone is a founder who couldn't get his own friends on-board, thus proving a lack of leadership ("vote of no confidence")
2) "Starting a startup is too hard for one person [...] you need colleagues to brainstorm with, to talk you out of stupid decisions, and to cheer you up when things go wrong"
3) "The low points in a startup are so low that few could bear them alone. When you have multiple founders, [...] Each thinks "I can't let my friends down." This is one of the most powerful forces in human nature, and it's missing when there's just one founder"
Graham was so intransigent on the idea that you need a co-founder, he forced Drew Houston (Dropbox's founder) into finding one in two weeks to get into Y Combinator. It went well in the end, good for him. What about the countless startups that shut down because of a co-founder breakup?
My first startup failed after one year. It was time to scale but our visions were different. A great co-founder relationship is about 3 things: friendship, alignment, and dedication.
It's pretty famous that co-founding a startup is like getting married.
Friendship: If your significant other is not your greatest friend, it won't end well.
Alignment: If one wants kids, but not the other, it won't end well.
Dedication: If you are less committed than your spouse in the relationship, the breakup is imminent.
It is objectively hard to find a great partner in life. Finding a partner for the sake of it is the surest path to self-destruction.
Not everyone has friends who have the exact same interests. Hell, that would be boring. Friends don't necessarily have the right skill set or are too afraid to leave their situation. And who can blame them? You have to be a little mad to build a company. You can just work in an office without having to worry about tomorrow. The American mindset ignores the cultural specificities of the rest of the world. Not everyone is comfortable with risk or change, and that's okay.
Building a startup is like traveling: it is better to go at it alone, then find like-minded people on your way.
You can be alone, but you don't have to be lonely.
Stay close to your users, stay close to your friends and family.
Join communities. In the olden days, master artisans, who represented a big part of the business owners, had no co-founders. Instead, they could rely on a guild. Surround yourself with makers, doers, and enthusiasts.
It is easy to give into fear when you feel lonely. Only cowards settle down for the first familiar face that offers them some sort of immediate attention. Work on yourself and others will eventually be attracted to what you want to offer.
If not, your idea sucked in the first place. Don't give up. Move on.
Originally published at 200wordsaday.com
Great read. I think it needs to be said though, that the potential of single founders has never been higher. With the rise of open source software, frameworks, SaaS offerings, scalable cloud infrastructure, easy to use payment gateways, and armies of on-demand freelancers -- what individual founders can accomplish today would have taken a room full of full-time employees 20 years ago.
Can you accomplish more with more people? Sure. That's probably never not going to be true. But the potential for single-founder startups has never in history looked anything like this.
Yes, technological improvements are a good argument as well! Thanks for reminding me of this :) I will include it in the future version of the draft
Family wisdom:
good one haha!
My mom works as a bank employee, granting loans for professionals is big part of her job. She once said to me "We don't like it too much when there are 2 or more founders...it rarely end well. A co-founder is a risk."
"A co-founder is a risk". A risk of changing his focus. A risk of holding information. A risk of misalignment. A risk of dedication as you say.
Thanks Basile, and thanks mom
More than 3 co-founders end up in chaos :P
This is actually something I've thought about a lot. I've been worried that, as a single founder, I might not be as capable as a two- or three-person team doing the same thing.
I'm starting to learn, though - the stuff you're not good at can be outsourced. You don't need a friend on board to validate you have a good idea, you need paying customers. If you partner with anyone, chances are you won't have the same vision (Steve Jobs vs Apple being a great example).
The only real reason to partner on something is if you're both bringing crucial ingredients to the table. For instance, you have the technical chops, and your co-founder is well-networked and can land the first 10 customers. Or you're a deep domain expert in something, but need a marketer who wants to grow their career in the same direction as you.
Good points! Also, being a solo founder today doesn't mean you have to stay solo the whole time.
I have been a solo founder for about 10 years now, and I wouldn't totally dismiss pg's advice.
Although you shouldn't rush the choice of co-founder, it does help with brainstorming and motivation. I think starting with a co-founder should be the de-facto way of running a startup, but if for some reason you end up solo, just know it will be even harder for you.
If you need external motivation from a co-founder to build a startup, Bukowski would say: "Don't bother".
As of brainstorming, how about talking with your users first and foremost?
#1 It doesn't have to be a need, I am saying that when you are feeling low, having a co-founder to remind you why you are on the journey would be helpful.
#2 Users can tell you about their problems, not about solutions to their problems (or you shouldn't listen to their solutions). People are not good at inventing / innovating.
Funny I was just reading Sam Altman’s Startup Playbook and he has covered it well. The worst thing is to have a bad cofounder (someone you will break up with later), followed by no cofounder and the best case is to have a great cofounder.
PG’s advice is a sum total of what he hasn’t seen with YC companies and I would not discard it easily.
I would rephrase the title to become:
"You might not need a Co-Founder".
Depending on who you are and the environment/market you are evolving in/targeting a co-founder (or many co-founders) might very well be a must.
I'd like to correct you, it should say "You might not be the type who needs co-founders"
For Budget-Fox I found a co-founder who fills in the few things I really can't do and also he's a motivation for me. We have clear rules in the contract we've setup regarding inactivity or dropping out, rules that put our SaaS first.
100% agree. If it's a good fit, go for it! I was more thinking of people who think it's necessary to have a cofounder when I wrote this piece.
This comment was deleted a year ago.
It's his very first item in the "The 18 Mistakes That Kill Startups" list he made haha