Ask HN: What qualities do you look for in potential co-founders? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: What qualities do you look for in potential co-founders?

42 pointszxcvvcxz17 comments

Experienced, and reasonably successful (3 exits) technical cofounder here:

Sales. Experienced, demonstrable sales excellence. Ideally selling things of comparable size to similar customers as my venture.

We should get along well, I suppose. But the best social lubricant is success, and I'm confident we'll be successful if my partner can handle customer advocacy and sales.

The greatest cofounder I've ever had was an older misogynistic homophobe (when I was a younger gay woman). We got on great because neither of us stepped on the other's toes and we crushed it.

Although there are times when success is impossible regardless of sales or technical ability (bad economy, market forces, etc.) - how do look for a cofounder that'll work well with you during both the best and worst of times?

During the worst of times we fail and try again later.

The goal is to win in decent or better times, so I optimize for that. And honestly, keeping it professional removes the emotional overhead of a deeper relationship. I don't need to worry about his feelings nor he mine, we just need to succeed in our domains.

This isn't a high school cafeteria, it's a job and a mission. I'm not going to choose based on intuition or friendliness, I'm going to pair up to win.

It's worth noting that as a "diverse" founder, finding someone "like me" who I "click with" and shares my views and narrative probably isn't going to happen.

Without a doubt: Rate of Learning.

I've recently come to this realization after years of work. Rate of Learning dominates everything else. Teammate doesn't have good communication skills? Are they willing and working to learn?

Rate of learning is more important than intelligence, skill, mindset, or demeanor because it's the rate at which those change.

Choose someone who learns exponentially over someone who learns linearly.

Avoid people who aren't interested in learning like the plague your life may very well depend on it.

Rate-of-learning: the most valuable startup compensation: https://medium.com/full-stack-marketing/rate-of-learning-the...

In addition to the skills needed for each founding role (differs between teams) there are two vital things that have to align:

1. The why - if one of you is trying to legitimately change the world and the other knows up front they'd be happy to sell out for $x amount, chances are big problems regarding strategy will arise in the future, even if there never is a buy-out offer

2. Communication - I would rather work with someone whose 80% as good as the best available if their communication skills are better. Once you're out of the initial product development phase almost everything the founders do is communicating, on some level, whether that be managing employees, customers, or investors.

3.(BONUS) Growth mindset / Self-improvement driven - Starting a company means doing A LOT of shit that you don't want to. If you partner with someone that is afraid to be terribly shitty at something and won't even try, you're in for a rough time.

Synergy, Commitment, Talent, Experience, Drive, Honesty, Adaptability.

Pick someone who fills your gaps, covers your weaknesses and you'd work with then for free because you enjoy working together.

I'd recommend before signing any contracts or forming an actual business to make a side product not related to what you want to build or do but something you guys have experience in. See if you work well together and can solve a simple problem together. Typically you'll run in to issues if not that's great but you want issues and problems because great cofounders solve things together.

Chances are youll fail and learn or get luck and make money to fund your new venture!

Perseverance. Determination to succeed, or at least survive, at all costs. I think PG and Sam Altman affectionately call people like this 'cockroaches'. I have many of the positive qualities listed in this thread but a decidedly mediocre amount of perseverance. After a month or so in the 'trough of sorrow' I become disillusioned and am ready to throw in the towel. Time and experience have mellowed me somewhat but I directly attribute success in my 20s to co-founders with a sufficient amount of cockroach DNA who would just not let the team quit no matter how hopeless it seemed.

Someone who pushes me. Is as excited about the idea as I am and shows it by firing off ideas on top of mine. Someone who complements my weaknesses (lack of organisation in many ways is my weakness). And someone who can make me debate instead of agreeing with me.

Most of all though, someone I know I can be a friend with. Cos when times get tough that extra bit matters most.

I would count the number of mirror neurons he has in his head, we could go into the numerous benefits this would have for you as a founder. But this should be self evident. Altruistic people tend to have this going for them the most.

in no specific order:

-relentlessness

-lack of ego

-hungry to learn

-exponential learner

-someone I can completely trust

-someone who can be checked without hard feelings and who can check me

-interest and expertise in the main role(s) they will be covering

-someone I love being around

It boils down to a person who is trustworthy, wanting to be the best at whatever they do, committed to the vision/company to an obsessive degree and will push me to be better

I've seen exponential learner mentioned a few times, but I'm not sure I understand exactly how that's supposed to be understood. It would seem like it's someone who's rate of learning goes up, the more he learns, but I'm not really sure how that is sustainable. Could someone explain me the difference between an exponential learner and someone with a high, linear rate of learning?

So you would've told Steve Jobs to get lost?

I'm not sure, I know of him, never knew him. Just because someone is going to be successful, doesn't make them a good cofounder fit.

I also want to clarify what I mean by lack of ego. I mean it in the sense of an individual never thinking they know enough about something and refuse to learn.

Steve Jobs was never a good co-founder. Steve Woz was a decent person but Jobs was just behaved insane. He might be good at what he does, but he was not a good co-founder.

He was a fantastic co-founder. He succeeded beyond imagination.

If we want to say it would be difficult/stressful to work with him that's fair. But at what point do you not optimize for success, for example:

Steve Jobs - Asshole score: 85%, Success probability: 95%

Nice guy - Asshole score: 10%, Success probability: 70%

Given these stats would you really partner with #2 Nice guy?

Kindness, Efficiency, Hard work. In that order.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com