We have three founders and it's been pretty solid. It's very hard to have a decision impasse with 3 people. We all defer to each other's area of expertise and in the (many) areas where were are all stupid (but still have the make a decision), we defer to the majority (or occasionally, it's a "loudocracy"... :-) ).
Another downside that I don't think was mentioned is that your "ramen profitable" number goes up by about 50%.
Even with that, I think the 50% bump in (free and maniacal) manpower plus the extra perspective is totally worth it.
I always say that it's better to optimize your CHANCE of success rather than the magnitude of it, should it happen. Hard to argue that a good (free!) co-founder wouldn't do that.
Good point about ramen profitability going up with a third partner. On the flip side, you could say that your company is even further along when you do in fact reach ramen profitability then.
Absolutely. With 3 founders, you don't stop when you're making enough for 2 people to be comfortable with. You have to earn enough for at least 3 people, and when you are at that level, it's much easier to grow.
We also rock the 3-partner model - No problems yet. Easy to mediate decisions. We each have our core focus and can make game time decisions ad hoc, but if strategy is involved or a big decision needs to be made, the third person usually has very valuable insight, especially when two partners are butting heads.
I can agree with this. My startup has two thirds of the triumvirate, and we end up having to spend money on front-end design stuff. They're top-notch and all, but I think I'd rather pay someone who's on the team and around all day.
In one of my early companies, we contracted out the design and it was a nightmare. Design is one of those things that you really want the person to be producing every day. Our designer was actually in Ireland which was even worse. He was also working with other clients, so we weren't the main priority. Ugh. It's terribly even thinking back to those days.
"If you and your single co-founder don't agree on something, there's no third party to mediate. You're left in a deadlock with nowhere to turn."
One of my previous bosses made me promise to never start a company with only two founders for exactly this reason. This was after a very painful startup experience that ended with lawyers talking to lawyers, one founder buying out the other, and a fair bit of acrimony. I don't know how common this is, but I think I'll stick to the promise.
I went through the same thing with my last startup. It ended with lawyers on both sides, both of us having to raise money to buy the other one out, etc. It was not pretty. Odd numbers seem to always be better.
This is a great article and I agree with it. However, I think a second point can be made that odd numbers are generally better with most collaborative groups(be it one or three founders in this case).
There are so many examples of both 2-founder and 3-founder companies being successful, but I don't see why everyone keeps trying to generalize the argument to say that one is better than the other.
There doesn't seem to be a 'correct' number of founders (though clearly having 4+ or 1 has been known to be more difficult). You should choose your number of founders based on what you think will give you the highest probability of success given your situation, personality types, etc.
The title of the article should be, 'How Having 3 Founders Worked Really Well For Us'.
We're talking about methodology though. Something which is very meaningful in an engineering context but, and this is purely my opinion here, significantly less so in the business world.
There is, for example, a best way to build a bridge. I'm not so sure there is a best way to build a company.
If there is a single best way to build a bridge, then why do we have so many different types of bridges being built?
There are many different good ways to build bridges, with trade-offs between them, and knowing about them lets engineers to pick the best way to build a particular bridge.
I do believe that was what the parent said. There's no best bridge (or, say, best hash data structure), but there is a best procedure to create a given one.
16 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 38.8 ms ] threadAnother downside that I don't think was mentioned is that your "ramen profitable" number goes up by about 50%.
Even with that, I think the 50% bump in (free and maniacal) manpower plus the extra perspective is totally worth it.
I always say that it's better to optimize your CHANCE of success rather than the magnitude of it, should it happen. Hard to argue that a good (free!) co-founder wouldn't do that.
One of my previous bosses made me promise to never start a company with only two founders for exactly this reason. This was after a very painful startup experience that ended with lawyers talking to lawyers, one founder buying out the other, and a fair bit of acrimony. I don't know how common this is, but I think I'll stick to the promise.
There doesn't seem to be a 'correct' number of founders (though clearly having 4+ or 1 has been known to be more difficult). You should choose your number of founders based on what you think will give you the highest probability of success given your situation, personality types, etc.
The title of the article should be, 'How Having 3 Founders Worked Really Well For Us'.
It's probably just our engineering instincts trying to find the patterns in things.
Normative startup advice seems to be about as useful as normative life advice-- not very.
You frame a problem in a context, or a time frame, or a motivation and you can argue whatever point you want.
All predictions about the future are by definition opinion.
There is, for example, a best way to build a bridge. I'm not so sure there is a best way to build a company.
There are many different good ways to build bridges, with trade-offs between them, and knowing about them lets engineers to pick the best way to build a particular bridge.
http://www.the-halo-effect.com/