Does a startup benefit from two or three co-founders? Can single founders compete? Every so often this topic bubbles up into my consciousness rss feed. Lots of single founders say “It works fine for me” and lots of co-founders say “We probably wouldn’t have made it alone”.

These discussions are often had completely at cross-purposes: people persist in talking about very different kinds of companies. Look, it’s like Star Wars:

It’s Like Star Wars

Senator Palpatine has a dream. He’s seen this neat hack he can use to disrupt the established order and build a new empire, in which all the money (and power) goes to him. He needs to move fast, grow exponentially, work continuously. He needs a co-founder to help him in this big, high-stakes gamble against the world, so he goes out and gets one.

Han Solo also has a dream; the dream of personal freedom, of being his own man. He couldn’t be less interested in changing the world. He doesn’t want any part of the rebel alliance’s plans. He’s small fry, but he’s got what he wants - the ship he’s so proud of, his crew and the freedom to go and do what he chooses, beholden to no-one [1] - a lifestyle business.

See What I Did There?

The classic venture-funded startup is a high-pressure, all-or-nothing gamble against the world; in this environment it’s easy to see why the advantages of co-founders matter so much - doubly so from PG’s perspective as an investor in such companies. Anyone investing in Palpatine [2] without Anakin would have lost their money (as it is, all the smart investors cashed out long before Return of the Jedi, right?)

Most single-founders I’ve spoken to personally or read regularly are actually building lifestyle businesses. They work for their freedom, their independence, the ability to choose their own destinies. Sure, they’d love to make it big, but they’re happy to take it slow. How would you find a good co-founder for a lifestyle business? You’ve got two different lives to lead and the whole point of the business is getting to do it your way. In these circumstances, a single founder with employees or contractors makes a lot of sense. They’re Han Solo, in their very own Millenium Falcon, and they like it.

So next time you read, write or comment on an article comparing the merits of single and co-founders; next time you feel your personal choice undermined by someone else’s argument, stop and ask yourself: is this about forging an empire, or being master of your own destiny? They’re not the same thing. [3]







[1] Well, except his debtors, although that’s nothing you can’t cure by shooting first. And yes, yes, Han-Solo had his long-time friend as first-mate, but he was already on his entreprenurial path before they got together and he’s clearly calling the shots. Don’t go all Chewbacca Defense on me here

[2] I don’t want this negative image to distract - I’m not trying to compare Silicon Valley to the Sith Lords here, it’s just for illustration. Although now I think about it, they do have my data by the throat.

[3] This is really true. Palpatine has power and resources Han Solo can only dream of, but Han Solo has freedoms that the emperor can never have. Great responsibility and all that. Also, Han Solo doesn’t get stabbed in the back by an ungrateful co-founder after they make it big, but this is getting off-point real fast…