StartupNorth

Interesting post.

I wonder, is there too much emphasis put on founders? Should early employees be given more credit publicly?

One early employee of a successful company once told me that sometimes people forget the company was built by more than just the founders.

David: Thanks for translating the meaning of my post – you hit the nail right on the head! 

Yup. Great post. Thing is tho, at least in my mind the “cachet” of “being” a founder is more important to some than the actual startup itself… At many of the recent StartUpWeekend events I’ve attended, one of the ubiquitous conversations that I hear early on day 1 is – “I want to be a founder” type of claim by just about all in the room. So…as David points out, the actual “making” of a founder appears to be worth more to some….than the actual “being” of a founder…something to ponder further, I’d surmise….

Not a very aspirational post.

“We can’t all be heroes” <– for the first time in history, because of the lowered cost and increased acceptance of startups, we can.  Assuming this means $1B companies every time misses the point of what's happening in society.  Big companies are cutting fixed costs and are willing to work with first-time contractors and teams working out of their dorm room.  Demonstrate your expertise on dribbble, oDesk, and countless other sites and you get to pick what you work on from anywhere in the world, regardless of your culture, language, or university diploma.  You can build a powerful network through Linkedin and Twitter even if you can't afford a plane ticket.

"There are the founders that WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT, but there are people behind the scenes that are driving."  So why always talk about them?  At some point the brand overpowers the founders and takes on its own life.  Shouldn't we talk about the companies – the vision, and the opportunity to create change?  Besides bragging rights for founders, wouldn't highlighting the actual products be more effective (I still don't know what kik does)?

So what's the issue?  Not everyone should start a company because – in many instances (and this is true with tech and non-tech companies) – individual risk tolerance is different.  Because people want to live balanced lives and just don't care about the goldrush.  Because many people enjoy being experts in specific things and participating on high performing teams.

But what's with the hating on too many startups?  The implied message that unless you're going to build a $B company, you should get on someone else's bus?  Shouldn't everyone get to experience the roller coaster?  Why shouldn't people get the opportunity to see if their idea has a potential to exist in the world?

If there was suddenly an increased focus and market for beautiful paintings would you tell everyone to stop painting unless they had the skills of Rembrandt?

We are seeing the birth of a new global economy where everyone should have some entrepreneurial skills and innovation will be the highest value.

I recommend EVERYONE to start something they are passionate about to change the world AND participate in teams where they can work with amazing people on big visions – its isn't an either or.

http://www.startupplays.com/blog/the-startupplays-story/

great post. In many cases a founder becomes successful when they have a co-founder. This seems IMHO to be an important point that sometimes decides which startups becomes successful. Obviously hiring the right people and holding on to the talent is not an easy task but it critical for the success of the startups. In addition to the posts you highlighted, there was an excellent MBA Monday series on Fred Wilson blog about best hiring practices that might be relevant to your post – http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/06/mba-mondays-best-hiring-practices.html

Being a founder is a tough position, so the success of the company depends on the decision that he makes. But  of course, we should also give credits to the employee since they are the man power of the company.