We hear about co-founder dynamics a lot in the startup community, and I wonder if the traditional business/technical dyad exacerbates conflict?
I am a technical co-founder, and that means I build things. In a conventional co-founding relationship, I am be expected to give my business-oriented partner the final word with respect to strategy or direction, and he defer to me on how to build the product.
At the outset, this puts all the power in technology. Nothing is more important than getting the right product built and shipping on schedule, execution is everything.
Unfortunately, at any significant scale it's all strategy. Technology increasingly becomes a cost centre; either it works or it doesn't, either it ships or it sinks. Strategic decisions begin to lead technology choices, and the CTO drifts away from the locus of power. Even if she's explicitly invited to participate in strategy, the buck stops somewhere she is not.
Influence, and with it ownership and personal investment, whipsaws from one founder to the other with neither realizing it explicitly. Ultimately, technical founders almost always drift away (as we've seen most recently at Buffer) when the company hits scale and they're fully vested. And that sucks - any new blood won't be as naturally invested in the product without further dilution, will lack history with the team, won't know where the skeletons are buried, etc.
I hypothesize that balanced founding teams - two business, two technical, sales & business, etc. would have more staying power in the long run. Cases where there is no default division of labour and influence. I believe I've seen this pattern, but without a neutral data set I can't trust my biases. YCombinator has enough data now to figure it out... (\nudge nudge\)
Unless I'm reading the blog post wrong[1], you've got it totally wrong about Buffer, Joel made Buffer 1.0 and was the technically minded co-founder at Buffer, not Leo. Sunil might have been an early hire, but we're talking a year after company founding. Joel + Leo took a while to grow it.
I remember watching a talk by Joel before he'd even brought Leo on board in Nottingham, UK (Joel was starting up in Birmingham, UK if I remember correctly), about his previous products/failures and how he'd just built Buffer and the problems it solved. I think I saw a post about Leo joining 3 to 6 months later, at the time a recent uni grad compared to Joel's more experienced dev + freelance dev background.
I've always been pleased to see Joel succeed, as he's a great guy, but I have to admit some of the posts they came out with have ultimately proved to be utter b%!!$hit. I remember calling them out on a post about how the UK was a bad place to startup, I've seen a couple of $100+ million buyouts of startups here since then just in Nottingham. Then they claimed bootstrapping was best, then raised. Claimed a flat structure was best, then go a traditional management structure, etc., etc.
I sometimes felt they were just echoing back to the startup community what the community wanted to hear, and to be fair, it really worked, they got lots of upvotes on HN, etc., so great marketing out of it, and good traction. There was a time when like clockwork they'd have a high-rated post here every Sunday (or Monday, can't remember).
Maybe it's just me but posts like that you linked fill me with a toxic feeling. I don't know how to describe it. It just smells so fake and diplomatic. Plastered with photos of smiling people in different countries and happy-go-lucky company culture bullshit. I don't know how I could move my body out of the bed if I were to work in environments like that. A "company retreat" is a nightmare in my eyes.
Sigh. I'm a pessimistic loner of an introvert and I don't need your bullshit in my life. I wish there was some more room for us on this planet. Every corner you look it's either filled with extroverts or fake extrovert wanna-be rockstar-templayers.
I consider myself an introvert as well, and quite frankly don't even think about things like company retreats etc. in my business. When we had lots of employees, even things like company Christmas parties or after work drinks would fill me with dread and I would just turn up out of duty. I would never organise them or enforce them, but simply go along when someone else did.
However, I've learned in all these years that for some people, this is actually what makes them tick. They thrive on such 'company culture' and the chance to let loose a little outside of the workplace. Each to their own. The sight of other people doing things they love shouldn't fill you with toxic feelings. Make you slightly uncomfortable or disinterested perhaps, but anything more than that, and there are probably deeper issues at play that probably need to be resolved in yourself, rather than externally.
I should clarify the part that I meant feels me with a toxic feeling was not seeing other people doing something they enjoy.
It's just that it seems like a carefully crafted image is being presented to manipulate the reader and to push forward a corporate agenda hidden behind a veil of optimistic language.
It's the corporate equivalent of a Facebook profile with holiday photos and what not.
I've seen people get sick of their "company retreat" on day one but they don't dare ever talk about it for fear of being labelled not a team player. They just pretend they are having the time of their life. And they'll come back write a blog post about their "WONDERFUL AMAZING JOURNEY" because that's politically correct.
No one writes some Medium post about "How I fucking hated being stuck with these people for 3 days and couldn't wait to come back home to take a break from this nonsense.".
It's one thing to say "parties aren't my thing," "I don't like talking to lots of people," and so on.
It's another thing to talk about a "carefully crafted image is being presented to manipulate the reader and to push forward a corporate agenda hidden behind a veil of optimistic language," a "toxic feeling," a "nightmare in my eyes."
The first case is just what it's like to be introverted, and I empathize with that. The latter is something else. That negativity and cynicism speaks to issues deeper than just being introverted. For example, I had this problem a few times before, and it usually had to do with feelings of jealousy over being left out.
I am somewhat introverted. Here's what I do if I'm at a company party/retreat/etc and I'm not having fun (usually because I don't see anyone I know): I leave.
Perhaps I'm just reading too much into the phrase "deeper issues" but I think you're reading too much into the whole "nightmare" phrasing.
I don't think it's so much of an issue of feeling left out as it is feeling pressured to suffer through it with a smile on your face.
Being visibly unhappy or disinterested while you are there usually brings additional pressure to engage. Leaving early invites later questions that require you to lie to be socially acceptable. And if the events are frequent enough it'll be obvious you are lying sooner rather than later.
And then add in considerations about what those above you in the company will think.
It's enough that I do have similar responses to such things. And it's also true that it's probably a somewhat too extreme of a response. Thinking about it is usually worse than actually being there, as it's usually possible to end up off in a corner with one or two other like-minded people which is mostly tolerable.
Although as things get more structured this gets harder, and the structure is usually accompanied by even more "optimistic language" so... again, the response seems fairly justified without invoking a need for "deep issues."
I guess what this makes me think about is, part of being an adult is doing things you don't necessarily like.
A company gathering, a few hours a couple times a year, that should be something a person can tolerate. They're your coworkers, you know them all to some extent already, and it's an evening or whatever once a quarter.
Especially since your managers will already know you pretty well.
I don't know, it's hard to be sympathetic, cause there are lots of awkward situations I just put up with in my day-to-day, that are a lot higher-pressure than that.
As I mentioned, it ends up being the thought of it that's the worst. I can grin and bear it - as you mentioned that just tends to be part of life.
I think we're probably talking about this a little too broadly. I wasn't thinking so much of the semiannual office party. On that side of things I'd probably completely agree with you.
I was thinking more about things that were some kind of event designed to "raise morale" or something with dedicated activities, potentially run by outsiders, for "team building." The sorts of things that have a strong "drink the koolaid" feel. Those are the things I start to think about (and dread) when that ultra-optimistic corporate speak shows up.
And I've seen at least one blog post on HN advocating for that sort of thing to be as frequent as possible for company size, down to even weekly IIRC - although at such a small size it might be harder for it to get too terrible.
The poster's wording is deeply vitriolic. If you can't see that points to some abnormal issues (either with them or with their particular company) then I'm not sure what to say.
Out of curiosity, have you ever worked at a company with a good deal of older married men/women with families?
Nobody is pressured to "suffer through it with a smile on your face." Nobody has to lie about anything. Among mature adults it is enough to say you simply had other plans, were tired, or simply "Oh, I was there for a bit."
In my personal experience, the kind of thinking that "I have to pretend I'm enjoying this," "I have to lie about why I left," or "people will judge me for not showing up" is a sort of neuroticism that is really entirely self-imposed / self-imagined. Nobody is actually judging you, you only think people are judging you (out of self-consciousness or something else). When I experienced it, it reminded me a lot of being in high school (and being very self-conscious).
I think it has to do with me being an introvert and not being able to deeply understand or view the world through an extrovert lens.
Having said that when I look around what I see is what appears to be mostly actors. And I think I'm just tired and jaded toward it.
People hide their ulterior motives behind a happy phrases in a way that I almost find offensive. I don't blame them, but I reserve the right to roll my eyes.
It's like how people hide behind "Changing the world for the better!" because "I want to get rich" doesn't sound as nice. Or how "Open friendly environment! Collaboration!" is used to push open offices when more often than not deep down the reasons are not quite the same as they say.
Sometimes I just want the wolrd and the people in it to be a little more real.
Having said that when I look around what I see is what appears to be mostly actors. And I think I'm just tired and jaded toward it.
People hide their ulterior motives behind a happy phrases in a way that I almost find offensive. I don't blame them, but I reserve the right to roll my eyes.
It's a bit unclear if you realize this or not, but to make it clear: there is a (very) large group of people who aren't acting or "hiding ulterior motives" when they act like this. They genuinely feel this way - indeed this type of behavior is what energizes them.
It's completely ok to not be one of these people of course.
It's like how people hide behind "Changing the world for the better!" because "I want to get rich" doesn't sound as nice.
I think more often than not, if you actually get to know those people, you'll find that they are true believers. You might think it's bullshit and maybe underneath it all it is, but in their minds, they are actually trying to change the world for the better.
I agree with you. This post, and the comments on it, felt incredibly creepy and inauthentic. So much self-congratulations about transparency and happiness while clearly obfuscating something very simple: the two that left wanted to grow really fast and get a big exit and the guy who stayed wanted to build a longer term company that is profitable. Thats fine and can be apprehended quickly when described plainly. We don't need to see you smiling in destinations around the world to accept that some business people disagreed about business strategy.
That's interesting. I've toured several WeWork locations and never pulled the trigger on signing up and couldn't figure out why. They're beautiful, well designed, and reasonably priced in great locations. Something just didn't click.
I've been involved in starting/supporting early coworking groups before, so my reluctance to join WeWork has really confused me.
I've always been pleased to see Joel succeed, as he's a great guy, but I have to admit some of the posts they came out with have ultimately proved to be utter b%!!$hit. I remember calling them out on a post about how the UK was a bad place to startup, I've seen a couple of $100+ million buyouts of startups here since then just in Nottingham. Then they claimed bootstrapping was best, then raised. Claimed a flat structure was best, then go a traditional management structure, etc., etc.
Soo, what you're saying is, when you publicly write about what your ideas and opinions are about how to run your company, you can't change your mind anymore.
Thing is, the best founders change their minds all the time. I really don't see how that's utter bullshit.
That vastly depends on the kind of company though. Most YC startups especially are about automating some sort of inefficency in the real world (see: paper based workflows).
I know YC is getting in to hardware and other areas, but most startups they are likely to fund are going to be an efficiency play. It's what they know best statistically.
Moonshots seem like they would go through YC research.
There are exceptions to this rule like Boom which was in my batch.
By definition many startups aren't actually about "tech". Yes as companies grow they will have mild scaling problems, but what determines whether users stay or not ends up being design or a big focus on a problem being solved.
The one caveat I would mention here would be infrastructure startups (disclaimer: I run one and am therefore highly biased) where you have things like databases,containers,AI platforms,.. where the technology vision matters in terms of appealing to a technical user base or where merits are based on the technology solving a real problem.
That being said - even something as "hard" as an AI startup: The model building isn't even the bulk of the work, after you build that it's mainly about UX, which firmly puts them in the same bucket as most other kinds of companies, even to the point of these companies just "adding AI" so they can raise some money.
That being said: Statistically startups are hard enough as it is, and the bulk of them to be efficient businesses are mostly going to fall in to the bucket I just described: using a bit of software to make a process in the real world more efficient.
> The one caveat I would mention here would be infrastructure startups (disclaimer: I run one and am therefore highly biased) where you have things like databases,containers,AI platforms,.. where the technology vision matters in terms of appealing to a technical user base or where merits are based on the technology solving a real problem.
Lately I've also heard these called tech-first startups (disclosure: I do contracted dev work for one).
At first I thought it was a redundant, unnecessary label, but given your contrast to efficiency play style startups, it feels like a useful and concise descriptor.
I'm mainly aware of this distinction because of a unique problem with AI startups.
Technically an AI platform and an AI product company (we call this vertical specific) are both "AI startups".
There is a larger trend in the industry that typically these "platform" companies are a solution looking for a problem (this is often the case). These companies are typically SAAS and get acquired.
What you see more of now a days are AI "product" companies focused on a particular problem like say: sales ops.
The "platform" people seem to have moved on to "chat bots" now. It seems like the same trend will play out though: "chat bots" for specific verticals.
That being said: As a founder of a startup that somewhat bucked this trend (focusing on an oracle type business model in various markets rather than SAAS and selling to developers) we focus mainly on a few key areas to make money.
The way we do this is "core technology" bundled with some sort of an "app", in our case being fraud detection solutions with a "land and expand" type approach. The thesis is we can see some of the benefits of being a tech-first startup (lock in and broad usage) but keep focused like a product company would be.
the professional skill-sets are secondary to personal chemistry. if the founders can't communicate it doesn't matter that they complete each-other's skills.
I think a bigger predictor for co-founder conflict (and, conversely, eventual success) is a common background and similar financial situation. If founders are from very different backgrounds, have very different home situations or have strongly differing financial situations conflicts are almost certain to arise, much more likely than simply because of a tech/business split in responsibilities.
How is it possible to divorce strategy and direction from product/tech? This siloed approach is almost guaranteed to bring problems.A CTO is someone who is essentially a technical CEO. They need to be involved in strategy just as much as the CEO for there to be a healthy co-founder dynamic.
I'm co-founding with someone with that dynamic (I'm handling product, she's handling business). Luckily we know and trust each other from way back, so tension isn't a problem, but there has been an interesting power dynamic - originally I was more in the driver's seat, since all we were doing was product development and there was no real business decision to make. Now that we're actually selling to customers (and investors), she's more in control of things, ie is more qualified to decide what features are important for business reasons.
I'm in the early stages of starting a startup, but I think if people focus on whether a decision being made is good/bad for the company rather than who's in charge, things would be a lot easier.
I would, too, like to see some hard data on your hypothesis, although I believe that there are too many inseparable human and enviromental variables at play here. At the end, the change in role and power is a very human development (see also: families, partnerships, child-parent relationships).
But I think that a 'division of responsibilities' issue may miss the most important dynamic and that is simply the 'relationship'.
If you get a long well, can handle disagreement, share a similar vision for the company, and have a 'history' together (which I think builds trust) - then those 'divisions' become less obvious.
Sure - maybe WRT some issues, 'one of the two' can maybe have more influence, but I think the dynamic is more personal, and blurry.
I wonder if it helps to have one of the co-founders simply have more authority - i.e. a 70/30 type situation wherein if the 70% co-founder does not abuse that, and stays pretty 'equal' for most things, and then hints at 'final call' in only a very few things ... that might work because it could help the 30% co-founder to concede.
It'd be interesting to see some data points on that.
I am a technical co-founder, and that means I build things. In a conventional co-founding relationship, I am be expected to give my business-oriented partner the final word with respect to strategy or direction, and he defer to me on how to build the product.
At the outset, this puts all the power in technology. Nothing is more important than getting the right product built and shipping on schedule, execution is everything.
Unfortunately, at any significant scale it's all strategy. Technology increasingly becomes a cost centre; either it works or it doesn't, either it ships or it sinks. Strategic decisions begin to lead technology choices, and the CTO drifts away from the locus of power. Even if she's explicitly invited to participate in strategy, the buck stops somewhere she is not.
Influence, and with it ownership and personal investment, whipsaws from one founder to the other with neither realizing it explicitly. Ultimately, technical founders almost always drift away (as we've seen most recently at Buffer) when the company hits scale and they're fully vested. And that sucks - any new blood won't be as naturally invested in the product without further dilution, will lack history with the team, won't know where the skeletons are buried, etc.
I hypothesize that balanced founding teams - two business, two technical, sales & business, etc. would have more staying power in the long run. Cases where there is no default division of labour and influence. I believe I've seen this pattern, but without a neutral data set I can't trust my biases. YCombinator has enough data now to figure it out... (\nudge nudge\)