Comments on: The Single Founder Myth

By: Mike Taber

Mike Taber — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:58:10 +0000

I think that IT companies are where I look at most because that’s where my experience is and what I’m immersed in. There are plenty of companies outside of the software community that are single founder companies as well. I just don’t know as much about them, primarily because they aren’t as loud or annoying as us software developers.

Let’s be honest here. Payroll processing isn’t exactly the sexiest business in the world. But in 1971, Thomas Golisano started Paychex and almost 40 years later it’s a huge company and he’s made hundreds of millions of dollars. Does anyone care? No, because processing payroll is boring. But it can still make a lot of money, and he did it without a co-founder.

By: Benny

Benny — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:38:43 +0000

Interesting topic and article. Mike, do you consider here only single founders of IT-companies? Otherwise, I suppose Richard Branson or Li Ka-Shing were also a single founders…

By: startupbug.com

startupbug.com — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 05:00:22 +0000

The Single Founder Myth…

My previous article, Startup Myths Debunked, seemed to attract quite a bit of attention in the developer community. In particular, people who left comments seemed to agree with “Myth#3: I need a partner”. Paul Graham who is one of the more influential …

By: Bootstrappy

Bootstrappy — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:29:15 +0000

Paul is, as it is know in the investment world, “talking his book.” I.e., he is promoting the view that benefits him and his projects. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, you just have to recognize it. Also, most people prefer to believe his view because most people could not, and should not, found a company on their own. There’s nothing wrong with that either, it’s just a fact. Theses are just some of the reasons why Paul’s view is… simply Paul’s view…. which benefits… Paul.

By: Agatha

Agatha — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 06:59:36 +0000

“My wife describes me as the most driven lazy person she knows.

With my business I’m driven to the ends of the earth to succeed. If Moon River Software fails, it will be because I’m dead. On the other hand, I’m too lazy to mow the lawn, clean the house, do laundry, fix things around the house, etc.”

You’re the owner? You own something other than a paper house and battery gizmos? Do you OWN it? I’d never buy your product after reading this.

By: Lida Tang

Lida Tang — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 06:22:59 +0000

I am a single founder in Mass as well. Being a tech guy, I want to balance a co-founder with business experience, but being a tech guy, I know pretty much only other tech guys, so finding a co-founder that I want is hard.

Now that my Cloud Browse iPhone app is almost out, if it works out, I wouldn’t need a co-founder.

It seems co-founding teams come out of college or a workplace, and if you out of that loop, it is very hard to form a team on your own.

By: uberVU - social comments

uberVU - social comments — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 02:30:54 +0000

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by SingleFounder: RT @SingleFounder The Single Founder Myth | The Single Founder http://bit.ly/1sGv5M…

By: T Chan

T Chan — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:23:40 +0000

Thank you! I really needed to read this. Things are looking bad when I fire my last partner because he didn’t do jack and I did everything from bizplan, to engineering and to programming. I did it all and it was tough firing my own brother. Thank you for the post!

By: Mike Taber

Mike Taber — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:59:27 +0000

If the idea was yours, the investment was yours, and the risk was yours, then I'm not sure how you could qualify your sister as a co-founder at all. It seems to me that to be a co-founder, there must be some investment or element of risk for which you would receive no compensation for if things turn out badly.

I'll be the first to admit that there are extenuating circumstances for just about any definition of a co-founder. But it sounds to me like you hired a manager for your company and compensated her extremely well for it. There's certainly nothing wrong with that. I feel that employees tend to be the lifeblood of a company and replacing them is extremely difficult, thus you should do everything you can to keep them happy and keep them under your employ.

Does that include part ownership? Maybe, but maybe not. That is dependent upon the owner and what the levels of rewards are. Some entrepreneurs in the past have argued for rewarding employees with partial ownership. But you have to realize that you are indeed rewarding them for staying employed with the company.

Think of it from a few different angles. First, what if you joined a company that had 1,000 employees and had been in business for 10 years, but you were provided with 20% ownership. Are you a co-founder? I think most people would agree that you are not.

It's intuitively obvious that a new company is not going to have 1,000 employees, because reducing the time it has been in business also reduces the number of employees. What of ownership though?

Sergey Brin and Larry Page are certainly considered to be the co-founders of Google, yet they don't own a majority stake in the company any longer. Current ownership is not an indicator of being a co-founder. Past ownership may be though.

One might argue that joining a new company has some element of risk in that you might not be employed for very long. Realistically, this is true of all companies. Ask anyone who accepted employment at a new company, only to have it bought out the following week. There's a lot of risk there, but no grounds for being a co-founder.

I think in the end, it is a combination of several things. First, you have to have invested both money and time. Angel investors "donate" money to startups, but they're not considered cofounders. If you donate time, but are paid for it and there is little risk, then you're really an employee, not a co-founder.

Even if you started the company and it is wildly successful and there's virtually no risk because you're making money from day one, the fact is you're still a founder or co-founder.

I've been considering a follow up article to this one. It seems to hit a lot of nerves and many people seem to ask the same type of question that you do... what exactly constitutes a co-founder?

By: D. Franks

D. Franks — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:06:52 +0000

I’m still confused about the word co-founder. I started up a business…it was my idea…..I invested all the money. I gave 20% of the company to my sister to run the operation. She received a salary of $95,000.00 a year. In the beginning we worked together in the development of how the company would be run. However, I didn’t take a salary for 7 years, now I’ve sold my other business and work everyday and receive a salary. In the start-up time I worked at my other company that I owned to keeping the money rolling in to make payroll, lease equipment, lease the building, purchase ingredients , office supplies, computer, insurance,etc. I was working 70 hours a week and sending all my extra money to keep this new company going. Would you consider my sister a co-founder or not? Remember I gave her the 20% she didn’t invest anything in the company but her time, which she was paid for. She worked 2 weeks here in California and then worked from home in Utah the other 2 weeks. Our other employees ran the company during the day and kept me and my sister abreast of what was going on. I would go to the plant whenever I was needed for special meetings or board meetings. Can you give me your definition of my sister as co-founder. Thank you.