Is It Time to Rethink the Stigma for Tech Companies Led by Couples? | Hacker News Reader

Is It Time to Rethink the Stigma for Tech Companies Led by Couples?

allthingsd.com

40 pointssnp16 comments

Simon and Nat started Lanyrd (W11) on their honeymoon even! They were planning on traveling around the world, but got delayed and built the first version in a couple weeks from a rented apartment in morocco. I bet there are other YC companies founded by couples as well.

Don't forget YC itself. :-)

Another post with a question mark in with an answer of 'no'.

There are exceptions to all rules, so there's no universal catch all. But all businesses with an extra layer of "relationship" get messy. That can be a couple, but more often it's family.

As an outsider there are things going on out of the office that you are not aware of, gossip, deeply divisive sides in any dispute, and vendettas if you choose the wrong side.

It's a minefield.

  There are exceptions to all rules, so it would be stupid 
  to not even think about it. But all businesses with an 
  extra layer of "relationship" get messy.

I'm sure we'll hear anecdotes to that effect - but is there good quality research-based evidence to back it up?

All the co-founders I know of are friends with one another, which doesn't seem to sink companies. And a lot of commentators in the press attribute Germany's economic strength to its 'Mittelstand' companies - small and medium size companies, which are often family-owned, export-oriented engineering firms [1,2].

Call me crazy, but when I'm making investment decisions I like to build my decisions on sturdier foundations than Betteridge's Law of Headlines.

[1] http://business.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/24/the-mittelstand-ger... [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17300246

It's a minefield.

No, it's a fallacy. And by, "it", I mean this idea that couples make poor founding teams. It's a theory that's usually stated with utter certainty and without proof ... not a winning combo.

My dad always told me that going into business with someone was like getting married. You are talking about deep levels of commitment required to make a business successful, and when things go badly, they can go horribly wrong. When I look at what he's going through when his business partners decided to force him into retirement, I think there is no question that this is right.

So if the co-founder relationship is best thought of as a marriage without the sex, why would a founding team that's actually married be at a disadvantage?

Phrases like "mom-and-pop store" or "family business" aren't cliches with no reason or justification behind them. I think any reluctance has more to do with the sad state of the modern couple than any inherent flaw in the business model.

It also might have to do with the fact that we're talking about a very specific field. This is not a field known for humility or stability when it comes to its startups. This is the land of Change-The-World and Make-Billions-Overnight and Disrupt-All-The-Things.

Maybe. But that mentality suggests it is all hope and hype, and a promise of very little substance, right?

I think VCs prefer not to fund couples for the same reason they prefer not to fund single founders - it's a question of control. With two or more co-founders, nobody has a controlling stake, and VCs can play one cofounder against the other, if needed, and thus push through their agenda. With a single founder, or a couple, they lose that dynamics.

Yes, I think this is one of the top concerns. I am very forthright with investors about the fact that one of my cofounders is my husband. The fundamental question I've been asked (in various ways) is whether or not I have the balls, and we have the kind of relationship, where I could fire him it I needed to (I'm the CEO).

After 5 years of marriage and much of the drama that comes with it (deaths, lost jobs, new cities, near bankruptcy, several months spent on different continents for business) has helped us figure out how to communicate with each other about the most difficult parts of life. It can be a bit tough to convey this in a 60 minute partner meeting though, so I can understand why investors hesitate.

Anti-couple bias is incredibly stupid.

If two people are capable of living together, sharing finances, and potentially raising children, starting a company seems trivial, by way of comparison.

Well, that's not true. Comparable? Okay. Trivial by comparison? I can't agree with that.

The activities involved in running a business are a superset of maintaining a relationship of any stripe. And you have to do them both. To rattle off a few examples, a relationship does not have customers. A relationship does not have employees. A relationship is not taxed the same way.

I entirely agree that anti-couple bias is incredibly stupid, but it's not because it's inherently easier to run a company than to carry on a relationship.

I don't know if it is a superset. Carrying on a relationship is one thing. Maintaining a joint household seems to me to require all the same skills....

A couple thoughts.

First, I am a huge proponent of couple-founded businesses. I think the economic entanglements help stabilize the couple, minimizing chances of a messy divorce. Additionally if you have couples which share the inspiration of the business, that's a powerful thing. I think that the fact that you don't have a hard line between work and home life is a big asset that goes the other way.

I am remembering the story on Dragon and the acquisition gone bad some time ago on HN and remembering that was another couple-founded company.

Depending on how you look at it, I believe Amazon is either a single-founder company or a couple-led company.

Either way it makes all stigmas look retarded.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com