Monsters wanted

Having read my fourth advertisement for a founder in as many weeks, I'm going to write the post I've been meaning to write since I saw my first. As is typical, Paul Kedrosky scratched his head about this trend months ago (somehow Paul spots trends before they appear to anyone else, or at least people like me, as trends).

First, it seems like a bad sign that we are advertising for founders in the Silicon Valley.  Maybe I am missing something.  Maybe this has been going on long before I ever arrived here in 1998, but it concerns me a little.  Is there really such a dearth of innovative founder types that we have to go looking for them in advertisements or blogs?

Even if ideas have always exceeded people here, to me there is a more troubling problem in advertising for co-founders.  In response to Jeremy Zawodny's post for his friend who was looking for a co-founder, I wrote to him:

My recommendation is that he simply look for a great employee who wants a huge chunk of equity.  I do recommend he treat employee #1 as a co-founder, tell him/her everything, build a partnership atmosphere, but not bill it as a formal co-founding.  Going it "alone" is really tough, but I just think he will create way more baggage than he will want or need and the chances he will find the perfect co-founder are so slim.  More likely he will think he did. ... for a few months.
Don't get me wrong, I think co-founder situations are probably better in most cases than going it alone (again, going alone is lonely), but in my opinion they should be reserved where two or more colleagues really know each other and understand who is going to play what role.  Even then, those situations often don't turn out.

I understand that it's exciting to be at the ground floor of a company and that's exactly what is great about living and working here.  But I don't understand why some really smart people want to attract to their own companies these monsters called founders.   First, it may be an impossible task,  since founders are really the engines of any great idea or company in the first place.  If matching a founder to an existing idea or business could be described in two words, it would be an oxy moron.   Second, founders are monsters.   They tend to give themselves or have given to them a run of the place that belongs to no other but them with their crazy ideas, fixation on details and pride of ownership. 

To be fair, David Cowan or Peter Rip looking for a founder for an incubated company probably involves appropriate parameters.  They will no doubt receive a lot of applications,  find the right fit for what they are trying to do, and eliminate the baggage that might otherwise exist (the cap table will likely favor the money).  My advice is more geared towards other entreprenuers who find themselves in the  situation of wanting to build a great company on top of a great idea but not having all the skills to do it.

If you are an entreprenuer, I think you should avoid advertising for a co-founder.  If things don't work out after the hire, you will not be able to say "You weren't really a co-founder".   Instead, you will go through a painful and disruptive process that is a lot more troubling than if you were saying goodbye to what you thought was a great first employee.  A best case scenario is that the person will walk away with more stock than you thought was possible.  A worst case scenario is that your company goes away too (ok, even worse, you go away and the company stays).

That does not mean you shouldn't look for soul mates, as Guy Kawasaki writes.   Indeed, going it alone is impossible, if not a myth.   If co-founding emerges as a natural fit between you and other people, jump on it.  If not, look for loyal, hard working and  smart people (ideally smarter than you) to work alongside you.  Give them incredible incentives, work with them in a true spirit of partnership and be loyal to them.  Just don't create a monster if you don't have to, and definitely don't go looking for one.