Almost all entrepreneurs have encountered problems such as how many founders the company needs and how to allocate equity when starting a business, but the forms of expression and the severity of the problems are different.
Sometimes it is how the equity is distributed, and sometimes there is dissatisfaction among the founders. Some people feel that they work harder than others, or some people feel that their contribution far exceeds that of the founding partners. However, among all the problems encountered in the initial stage of starting a business, one is the most prominent, that is, how many founders should a startup have?
This problem appeared on the American version of Zhihu -Quora website, which caught my attention, because it has two entrepreneurial elements, one is equity distribution, and the other is that the entrepreneurial team is nervous because there are too many entrepreneurs.
Actually, there is no standard answer to this question.
There must be at least two co-founders.
In fact, many entrepreneurial blogs or websites are advocating and encouraging this idea. Of course, this has also become the view of some well-known experts and venture capitalists. Moreover, to some extent, it seems to have penetrated into the real entrepreneurial world and become a law of entrepreneurship.
In fact, startups will not succeed because they have the most suitable number of founders, nor will they fail because they lack a certain number of founders. So, why is this concept so popular and won the support of so many people?
1, after weighing, share certain risks with others, why not?
Running a startup is not easy. You sometimes doubt whether your way, ability, courage and market potential are reliable. Not only that, but for a start-up company that was born soon, such doubts will actually appear many times every moment. If a startup company has two or three executives or co-founders, once it encounters problems, the number will play an advantage at this time. Because all leaders are less likely to be ousted at the same time, even if one leader is incompetent, there will always be other leaders who can take over.
2. Support each other and tide over the difficulties together.
Actually, this is an extension of the first point.
I used to start my own business. When I first started my business, I was 2 1 year old. At that time, I encountered many problems, which sometimes made me feel depressed and felt that I was a waste. But I always knew that one day would come. The problem is that even if my mood falls into that trough, I can't leave everything behind and give up halfway. I know I won't be ashamed for a long time. I will have a low tide, and then I will overcome it, and then I must restart my entrepreneurial work. Yes, this is the tricky part. I must stand up again, take the lead and make sure I get back on track.
Having a co-founder can help you reduce the burden of being a founder, because you are no longer alone, at least someone can rely on. Your investors also know this. So in their view, since two horses can pull a car at the same time, why do they have to choose a horse-drawn car? And for investors, betting on two horse-drawn carts should be less risky than betting on one horse-drawn cart.
But don't make a mistake, you know, at the beginning of your business, investors only bet on the horse pulling the cart, not the area where the cart is driving, nor the cart-pulling competition itself.
Two heads are better than Zhuge Liang.
For all entrepreneurs who have consulted me, I told them: "Do everything the company needs you to do." This is true in every way, and recruitment is no exception.
The point is not who can think of ideas. You must first find out what skills the company needs, and then ask yourself, do I have these skills?
If there is, that would be great! If not, you have to recruit, find resources to make up for your lack of skills and contribute most of the skills you need to your company. Now, what you value most should not be whether you can make these skill supporters become employees or co-founders of the company. If you want to build an entrepreneurial team, you don't need to do anything as long as the team shows the hope of becoming a cohesive and powerful team.
So three heads are better than one Zhuge Liang. You have certain skills and your co-founder has complementary skills. Gather everyone's strength and you will get a strong entrepreneurial team. Investors will naturally see it this way.
It's good not to be a lone ranger, but which situation belongs to too many entrepreneurs?
Again, I don't think there is a unified correct answer to this question. There are many aspects to consider.
* * * The more business partners there are, the higher the risk of important business members jumping ship, and they may even leave you when you need it most.
Too many cooks spoil the soup, that's why.
For example, wolves who like to fight alone, how much extra income do you think a group of wolves can get together?
Believe it or not, this last point I said is also the most important one. There is always only one kind of excess return in the battle of wolves. You should ensure that the team action can get this clear extra income, which not only requires individuals to contribute their talents and correct their mentality, but also needs to give the company the comprehensive ability that is urgently needed. If this goal is not achieved, assembling a large team is tantamount to inviting trouble.
One of the strangest things I have discovered recently is that many companies have co-CEOs. I'm not sure what investors think of this phenomenon (I really think we need to know something from some companies), but I can't think of a reason why a startup should share the CEO position with several people instead of one person. More importantly, in the actual operation of establishing a company, emotional factors will not have a place.
Back to the topic at hand, there is no really correct answer to this question.
For example, Housing.com, an Indian real estate startup, has 12 co-founders (right! You heard me right, there are so many people. It is such a company that was once thought to have a bright future. For a while, it went from bad to worse and almost reached a dead end. At such a critical juncture, the large number of co-founders did not make the company worse. If many founders make trouble, how can this startup successfully raise several rounds of considerable investment?
The number of founders has been clarified, and the next question is-how to distribute equity?
Gust, a software-as-a-service (Saas) financing platform, has launched a simple gadget that can help you decide how to allocate the equity of co-founders. Such platforms can go even further and explain their framework and how the calculator for allocating shares works.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I just think it's sheer nonsense!
Whether it is Gustav, AngelList or Techcrunch's equity allocation calculator, even if it is an excellent tool (because you will get data and analysis guidance from "well-known" sources), the most suitable equity allocation result should satisfy all participants.
As an entrepreneur of a startup company, your first task is to ensure that the startup team, Qi Xin, will work together and forge ahead towards the goal of the company's development and growth. Once you are in charge of the CEO of the company, this responsibility becomes more important. If the team members feel that their efforts are not recognized and do not reflect their due value, you will not be able to complete this task. Even if they are forced to agree to distribute their shares in some mathematical model, you can't bear the heavy responsibility.
So, how do co-founders allocate equity? You should propose solutions like professionals and friends. Respect everyone's contribution to the company and find a model suitable for all founders.
;