Ask YC: Entrepreneurs vs Builders

I think what you are proposing is a false choice but I understand why you want to frame it this way.

Having been an entrepreneur for the last fifteen years, I have come to learn that my job description as an entrepreneur is simple, "if I could describe it, it ain't my job".

In other words, in the beginning of the startup, you have to do whatever it takes (be an engineer, be a salesman, be a negotiator, etc.) but once the company gets off the ground, then you need to give that responsibility to someone else. But by then, there will be other tasks that are not well defined that require your attention. And the cycle continues until the company is no longer a startup and the entrepreneur has lost his/her place in the company (or he/she matures into a manager).

At the end of the day, an entrepreneur's job is to connect the dots. It is a deceptively simple description of what we do.

I don't think it is a choice. As described, entrepreneur/builder are two distinct personality types.

I think the "distinct" part is what makes it false choice. "Builder" (ability to create a product personally) is good. "Entrepreneur" is good. Having either one in spades may be sufficient for success. Having some measure of both may be as well.

It's pretty easy for me to think of people that are in one category or another, but more difficult to think of people who are a good mix. PG might qualify... who else?

To make this into an easier true/false question lets look at the http://www.startupschool.org/speakers.html Of these Marc Andreessen, Jeff Bezos, DHH clearly qualify, and likely some of the others as well (I don't know enough about them).

What you wrote is a very apt description of my idea of the 'entrepreneur', but it definitely isn't the "builder"/"Woz" kind of guy, so much. Maybe in the right circumstances, builders can handle that stuff (like PG in my example), but I don't think it comes as natural as it does to people who really fit into the role you describe.

Steve Wozniak was not an entrepreneur; he was an inventor and a great engineer. He didn't even want to leave HP to start Apple. Steve Jobs was an entrepreneur but I would argue that he was also an inventor and a great engineer (great product engineer). Obviously the two Steve's are different. Not being one doesn't automatically make you the other one. And that's what I mean by false choice. You are who are you are and all of us are a little of both if not a little of everything. Entrepreneurs by definition do not fit nicely into slotted description. That's why we decide to be entrepreneurs.

Jobs has done enough to be a personality of mythological proportions, but I don't really see him as an engineer or hacker without really stretching the definition of either term.

I understand "hacker" to be a self-created definition for a computer programmer with an altitude. If this is true, then I think there are few of us who would fit this description, including Steve Jobs. But an engineer is a much boarder term and if the definition of an engineer is someone who has a four-year degree from an accredited University, then you are right again, Steve Jobs is not an engineer. My apology.

With an altitude? There are a lot of good ones outside of places like Colorado:-)

Joking aside, I am going to respectfully say that I'm not sure you have fully digested the meaning of 'hacker' as we use it here. This comes fairly close:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_(Free_and_Open_Source_Software)

(watch out for the mangled parens), although of course many people aren't working on open source projects. An 'attitude' isn't really part of the picture, IMO, as some of the best hackers I've met are also extremely nice (and well adjusted) individuals. When you're that good, you don't need an attitude to communicate how good you are.

To keep using PG as a useful specimen for examination, the reason I think he's more hacker than entrepreneur is that an "entrepreneur" (in my mind) is less likely to go out and build something that is (once again in my mind) completely useless in terms of making money, like, say, Arc. It's just a fun thing to build that scratches his itch.

With an altitude (to succeed), with an altitude (to create), with an altitude (to make a difference in our World), with an altitude (to ensure fair play and to be a good citizen), and finally, with an altitude (to fight the good fight in spite of all odds and adversities). That's what I had in mind. Thanks.

Attitude, not Altitude. Sorry. Should have stopped on the 2nd bottle of wine last night.

I agree. Once you get past the idea phase of an early startup, everyone is essentially a builder. Even salespeople, business developers, and negotiators are contributing towards "building" the company. Once a company moves beyond the startup phase, the role of the founder begins to change -- the founder then needs to find a place in the company or move on to the next challenge.

I have been writing a book based on my own entrepreneurial experience. I am half way done. My last chapter is entitled "The Nail that Keeps the Air from Leaking" and that pretty much describes my own experience as an entrepreneur building a company from scratch.

http://www.StartupForLess.org

Once the company is profitable. It is really boring. Then the challenge is to find a way to leave (without others feeling that you have abandoned them). And there are so many ways to do it wrong but the main one is that we tend to overstay our welcome which is human nature, so the founding entrepreneur becomes both a bug and a feature.

Historically the distinction was far from false: it's Watt vs Boulton.

Perhaps it's getting falser as techies increasingly don't need business guys as cofounders.

"Perhaps it's getting falser as techies increasingly don't need business guys as cofounders."

The reason the barriers to starting a business are falling is because the tech side is getting easier and cheaper. The business skills one needs remain unchanged.

I agree. My own experience is that entrepreneurs tend to greatly underestimate the difficulty of selling. Particularly on this forum, we talk a lot about "making something people want" as if that's all it takes for a startup to succeed but we don't talk enough about "making customers pay for what they receive". My own experience is limited to selling to enterprise customers. In that case, the necessary condition is to provide a solution that puts out a fire that is burning someone's butt. But it is far from sufficient. In the end, it all comes down to convincing someone to risk their career and the financial future of their family on an unproven product from an unproven startup. Having a killer product is only the first step.

As the tech side gets cheaper and easier it may become harder to differentiate based purely on tech. This would seem to put a premium on entrepreneurship vs. naked technology. The easier it is for a lot of people to start tech businesses, the more the business model you choose makes a difference. It's possible that business guys increasingly won't need techies as cofounders.

There will always be a level at which technology can't be commodified.

I think it totally depends on the business, and the core problems that need to be solved for the business to win. Some businesses require only technical genius. Some really just need an innovative UI. Some need dealmakers.

A lot of builders attack problems whose core problems aren't technical... Which often leads to failure.

Either way, in the earliest stages, specialization is oftentimes a really bad thing. If you can't sell your product to co-founders, employees, partners, and customers, then you might be too specialized to be a successful entrepreneur.

Entrepreneurs (whether they are builders or not) get shit done. PG did sales. When he was starting up, he aggressively recruited great team members. Great entrepreneurs don't silo themselves... They stack rank the most important problems they should tackle (whether they are building-related or not) and then they try to destroy 'em with whatever means necessary.

So, in short: Make sure your teams' skills match the core issues of the product you're attacking, but know that every team member is going to have to get out of their comfort zone and attack stuff that needs attacking.

I think I have a slightly different spin on the difference. I tend to see, rightly or wrongly, a Builder as someone who is going to see a job through to the finish - a details person, in essence. A Hacker, in YC parlance.

I see Entrepreneurs as those that create the ideas, or see the vision of how an idea could be used, implemented (on a broad level), or sold. I feel an Entrepreneur's skillset lends itself to creating the team, inspiring the vision and making the deals necessary to establish the company as a viable entity.

I also tend to see Entrepreneurs as quickly bored (perhaps that is just how I see myself) and eager to move onto the next thing.

I guess that's why I feel a startup generally needs two co-founders - a business person and a techie person. Ideally, they'll each have a degree of appreciation for the other's domain.

I believe that there's an inverse relationship between "building" and "wheeling and dealing". The more and better you build, the less you need to wheel and deal.

I've always noticed that commodity type products needed great promotion people. Examples: insurance, real estate, some industrial products.

I think this happens less with great products that address a real need and have captured their place in the market. You don't see many telemarketers for Apple, Volvo, or Google.

I focus on building so I won't have to wheel and deal as much. Might not be a bad idea for most people here, too.

> The more and better you build, the less you need to wheel and deal.

I think that that is actually a common mistake for 'builder' type people. "I'll make something that kicks ass, and everything else will sort of work itself out".

"the less you need to wheel and deal" != "everything else will sort of work itself out"

Big difference

Ok, I think I used 'wheeler dealer' while thinking of something more like what Denny describes. Not a shyster, but getting out there, promoting your stuff, doing deals, meeting people, and otherwise getting people on board. And I think that you absolutely have to do that, even if you've built something fantastic. Where would Woz be without Jobs? You need someone who can get out there and schmooze/sell/hype/etc.. your product.

I totally that a product focus is a key to greatness, with a big caveat.

EVERYONE sets out to build a kickass product that are so freaking good that it flies off the shelves. Most fail, and merely build a GOOD product. Good products need sales, marketing, messaging, packaging, bizdev, etc.

And... FWIW, Apple spends a TON of money on marketing (but telemarketing, as you say, would be a bad way to market). They advertise everywhere, spend a ton on packaging, do biz dev deals all over the place, and all of the expensive Apple Stores are really just a distribution/marketing tool, no?

Andreessen told a great story about how they literally couldn't sell their business offering until the phrase "intranet" started making the rounds... Same product, different packaging/messaging, sales skyrocket.

How you talk about your product and how you position is (oftentimes) just as important as how good it is... Especially if it's just merely good.

I think that's a really good question. There are (at least) two distinctly different skill sets or personality types essential for a successful entrepreneurial business - one is the thinking-of-new-ideas-and-making-them-work track and the other is the bookkeeping-and-keeping-up-with-routine track. I'm not very good at the second; switching back and forth between coding and bookkeeping makes me want to sit in a corner of a dark room and rock back and forth slowly while reciting Kipling. Some people, though, are really good at the second. I know a few people who manage both and I'm rather in awe of them.

Perhaps there's a third type, too - the guy who goes out and sells the idea, like Jobs to Woz.

How do you solve this problem? What am I doing wrong?

Entrepreneurs are defined by their characteristics: Willing to take risks, able and willing to learn and execute on multiple areas of business starting, and most of all, adaptable: able to change course based on what he or she sees in the market.

All entrepreneurs are builders. They build both the idea and the business. What separates them from builders is their ability to adapt and their willingness to branch out into a lot of different areas

Would you classify Steve jobs as a "builder" or an "entrepreneur"? i think for any would be successful startup founder, you have to swing both ways. just my 2 cents.

Jobs is not the "builder" in any technical sense of the word. But he's a brilliant entrepreneur nonetheless.

Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were the main brains behind the Apple computer although Steve Wozniak was more nerdy, Steve Jobs also had his input. He is seen as a business or idea man today because of his charisma and flamboyance.

Entrepreneur. Woz is a builder.

This may not be a duality with clear-cut boundaries, but nevertheless it strikes me as a very true one, one that helps me understand things. Introvert/extravert is not clear-cut either.

People who can run the day-to-day operations, dealing with many dept. (sales, marketing, technology, HR etc.) may or may not be an entrepreneur because my understanding is entrepreneurs are builders because they create something from scratch.

Many people start their career with 9 to 5 job and keep getting promoted to the CEO level, but they may not have ability and courage (at least in the beginning of their career) to build a new business right from the scratch.

While entrepreneurs/builders are the people who start and build something (or help others to build something) from nothing.

Serial entrepreneurs (and builders) are always on the move - from one project to another as they are not interested in doing the same thing over and over again on daily basis - they get excited to build something from scratch and once it is built they find the right person to run it (or they help others to build it and move on to the next project).

Serial entrepreneurs (and builders) to me are like King-makers, they are not interested in becoming a king them self and run daily operations. They are like a Guru who has many disciples (kings) who achieve success with his/her skills and knowledge. It is well known saying that a Guru is equal to a 1000 libraries - they know which book is for whom, and when and how to use it.

> entrepreneurs are builders because they create something from scratch.

Yes, the two types of people aren't that far apart, but the entrepreneur is the guy that can tie things together and make things happen, whereas the builder is the one who creates a beautiful, well done product - or maybe not even that, just a brilliant idea that no one has ever done before. Perhaps "pure" builders aren't suited for startups - they're the brilliant type of people who just don't want to be bothered with organizational or marketing details, and would be happy in the R&D department of a company big enough to give them all the resources they need to create really interesting things. At least that's my mental image...

Some hackers who strike me as not wanting to deal with the business side, and have still prospered might include people like Andrew Tridgell (who is a seriously smart individual), Linus Torvalds, Guido van Rossum, Alan Cox, and so on. Not that they don't have some good organizational skills and people skills too, but they are not the kind of people I would describe as entrepreneurs.

Very few people who treat their job as 9 to 5 get promoted to CEO.