back
17 comments
Despite the fact that we're coders, we're not necessarily smart.

But at the same time, I think that what makes us capable of pursuing startups is our potential to learn quickly. That's one of the best traits to search for in a partner. Running a startup is difficult. Having somebody who can adapt quickly is more important than someone who's smart and static.

A major motivation to pursue your own startup is to be your own boss. This makes finding a partner really hard. What is the likelihood that you would have two very strong willed people who can work together and compromise?
thats not my motivation! thats a mistake if its your only motivation behind starting up...

and your argument reveals selfishness, something I would avoid when searching for a cofounder.

Mutual vision, trust and willing to work hard together, support and help each other is amongs the secrets when peeking cofounders. Other than that, its obvious you are searching for employees.

well said, volida!
My fortune cookie advice on the subject: _Never_ partner with someone who is not as technically literate as you (= not a programmer), even if they have the money. _Especially_ if they have the money.
I'd amend that to "Never partner with someone who is not technically literate as you, *if* they think they are as technically literate as you or believe that technical literacy is not important."

It can often be very productive to partner with someone with people skills, or business skills, or finance skills. Those things *are* important, and yet you won't have spare brain cycles for them if you're doing hardcore programming. That person just needs to realize that *you* call the shots when it comes to technical decisions.

Warren Buffett's advice applies, as always. "It's not how much you know that matters. It's how realistically you assess what you *don't* know."

I could live with that definition, but I've had 2 partnerships now in 2 different companies where I felt the person had qualified on those grounds and while they are still great friends etc., I was a bit disappointed. If it is a tech company, I really think they both have to have real tech expertise. It has little to do with just having someone else to do the programming- in both of those partnerships the partner was more than willing to defer to me on all technical matters that they perceived to be technical matters.

In a tech company, though, _everything_ is a technical matter- for example- marketing. Early adopters for 99% of tech products are geeks- if you are not one then you do not understand the market (hence all those MBA lead failures of the late 90's). Finance for a tech startup usually has to tie into the product / subscriptions, etc- and is thus a tech problem. PR is to fellow geeks, etc. etc. Then there's the fact that the bulk of the work to be done is technical- if you're going to be having allnighters for the next 3 months getting a product out- there is a _big_ difference between having a partner who is right there with you in the trenches coding across the room, and a partner who comes by every day and says "well, uh, how's it going?"- you spend the next hour trying to explain the latest hangup etc. and then they say "well, let me know if the schedule changes- I've got some great customers lined up..." or whatever.

Sometimes that situation is unavoidable, but I guarantee it is not optimal.

The only thing I disagree with is your idea that technically literate means being a programmer.

Jesse James Garret, the guy who coined the term AJAX and came up with the design philosophy around it, isn't a programmer. But if I were a great programmer then he'd certainly be someone I'd want to partner with. Literacy just means the understanding of a certain discourse. Once you've taken a couple college level programming courses then you can pretty much understand everything a programmer is doing, but that doesn't mean you always know enough to do it yourself.

Agreed. If you're a musician and you never partner with someone who isn't as good at singing then you'll never have a band. If you're a writer and you never partner with anyone who isn't as good at writing then you'll have no editor, no publisher, and no book.

I don't see why a startup should be any different. You have so many tasks (design, engineering, coding, selling, fundraising, partnering, etc.) that it makes no sense to only work with people of the same skillset.

working with != partnership. I really think it's a different beast. I've also been in bands and occasionally someone would say "I'd love to partner up with you guys and manage your band or do PR for you guys." If they had experience playing or producing music, we'd give them a chance. If they listened to the radio and fantasized about being in charge of the back-stage passes for the next big band, but had never picked up a guitar- no chance.
I think that while it's obvious there are some advantages to working with someone that does other things (sales/marketing/finance), one of the reasons why I find myself agreeing that it's best to work with another techie is that it makes the relationship easier. It's easy to wonder if someone else is working as hard as you if you're the one coding the entire system and they're just supposed to sell it or market it. I suppose the opposite is true too... how does the non techie know that you're capable of doing what you dream up? In a relationship that needs to be very trusting, perhaps it's just easier if everyone speaks the same language and works on similar things. It's also easier to divvy up the money and control if it's obvious to everyone what their role is.
Competence is of the utmost importance, but it'd be a mistake to ignore those who don't hold the exact same skill-set as you. A startup needs a variety of talents, and it's usually the case where there is some member of the founding team who is the most brilliant hacker, or someone who's great with user interfaces, or someone who has a knack for design and testing.

I do agree that your partner should have a hackers' passion and be technically competent. You don't need someone that's all theoretical and won't get down and dirty with some code.

You'd better throw in some epsilon of tolerance there, or finding two people both willing to work with each other is going to be *really* hard :-)
True- Maybe I should add though it doesn't take all that much to be as technically competent as I am ;)
If one Steve is rare, two Steves are rarer. Maybe someone could do the math, but it's pretty obvious.
I think one factor is ego. Another is how much to give up?
Ego can go, but confidence stays.

Compromise is a complicated matter. Don't compromise on your good ideas. There will undoubtedly be conflict among founders regarding vision and method, but the best relationships will work through those.

If you don't disagree with your team at some point, you're not contributing enough.