Co-founder conflict is responsible for far more fuck-ups than we may care to notice.
One Princeton study about co-founders says 65% of startups failed due to co-founder disagreements. Ultimately, it all boils down to one word, always: control. This a feasible restructuring to help eliminate the co-founder conundrum, based on striking a partnership deal that's more attuned to real-life behavior.
I agree, control is so important whether or not technology is involved.
>You own 90–100% of it, take the lead, and avoid butting heads and blame games as co-founders. You’re now accountable and responsible since it was your idea, your vision, and your commitment, but you enjoy full autonomy–a gift unlike any other in real life, TBH.
This has always been a fairly good starting point to negotiate from.
For a "non-technical" business, the technical business partner is about like a hired mechanic who picks up the loose ends when they appear, in a business that is not primarily technology-based. Kind of like with used car sales.
If it's going to be a technology business of course it's the other way around, the technology is best owned and operated by a technical leader who has way more skill at running a technology business than the most advanced MBA, and from there carefully chooses a non-technical partner who can pick up the loose everyday business ends for not much equity or decision-making responsibility.
Getting this backwards looks like an even more prominent cause of complete failure than many other things.
This reads like the author trying to convince his partners they are worthless and should take this Amazing Deal he's offering ... instead of, you know, being business partners.
Have you read the article? The subtitle literally is "You don’t need a technical co-founder: what you need is a technical business partner"
I have no co-founders and am not looking for one.
Co-founder conflict is responsible for far more fuck-ups than we may care to notice. One Princeton study about co-founders says 65% of startups failed due to co-founder disagreements. Ultimately, it all boils down to one word, always: control. This a feasible restructuring to help eliminate the co-founder conundrum, based on striking a partnership deal that's more attuned to real-life behavior.
I agree, control is so important whether or not technology is involved.
>You own 90–100% of it, take the lead, and avoid butting heads and blame games as co-founders. You’re now accountable and responsible since it was your idea, your vision, and your commitment, but you enjoy full autonomy–a gift unlike any other in real life, TBH.
This has always been a fairly good starting point to negotiate from.
For a "non-technical" business, the technical business partner is about like a hired mechanic who picks up the loose ends when they appear, in a business that is not primarily technology-based. Kind of like with used car sales.
If it's going to be a technology business of course it's the other way around, the technology is best owned and operated by a technical leader who has way more skill at running a technology business than the most advanced MBA, and from there carefully chooses a non-technical partner who can pick up the loose everyday business ends for not much equity or decision-making responsibility.
Getting this backwards looks like an even more prominent cause of complete failure than many other things.
This reads like the author trying to convince his partners they are worthless and should take this Amazing Deal he's offering ... instead of, you know, being business partners.
Have you read the article? The subtitle literally is "You don’t need a technical co-founder: what you need is a technical business partner" I have no co-founders and am not looking for one.