Mostly I agree. But I also think that someone who is very good, and in a very good MBA program, can do their share of contributions, iff they're committed fully to the startup upon graduation.
But if the follow-through doesn't happen, then the whole thing was probably a huge waste for non-MBA-student co-founders. (Unless those co-founders weren't really committed themselves.)
> Full-time cofounder(s) should have the right to fire other cofounders,
I'd guess there's usually no point in a technical co-founder "firing" their capable business co-founder; it just ends the company.
While the technical person is spending most of their time on technical bits (no matter how much customer-facing product management time you have), etc., the business person is spending most of their time on relationships (investors, partners, customers, etc.). To a large extent, they take those relationships and reputation with them wherever they go next.
Unless the technical cofounder has some very rare and marketable technical expertise that the business people recognize (e.g., some recent big AI invention, or a fancy title at a FAANG), the technical cofounder will probably be considered an ordinary commodity by most.
> IMO an MBA is not the kind of degree that is worthy of delaying founding a startup
My guess is that an MBA from one of the most prestigious programs is usually worth delaying founding a startup. The MBA student can lay some of the groundwork while in the program, get mentoring and connections, and then out-execute many competitors once the student graduates.
The kinds of startups a lot of us have been thinking of are essentially the last 20 years of mostly ZIRP investment scams, but that can't go on forever (current dotcom-bubble-like "AI" hype wave low barriers to acquihire exit notwithstanding). I'd guess more people will have to do viable businesses than our field has in a long time.
Mostly I agree. But I also think that someone who is very good, and in a very good MBA program, can do their share of contributions, iff they're committed fully to the startup upon graduation.
But if the follow-through doesn't happen, then the whole thing was probably a huge waste for non-MBA-student co-founders. (Unless those co-founders weren't really committed themselves.)
Maybe a 18-24 months cliff would solve it?
you need a way to cause the termination for this to help. IME most things linger in zombie mode forever, they don't explode early.
Full-time cofounder(s) should have the right to fire other cofounders, at least until a formal board of directors is established
The problems start when you fire someone with equity closer to the cliff
Anyway, I don't get the original post, IMO an MBA is not the kind of degree that is worthy of delaying founding a startup
> Full-time cofounder(s) should have the right to fire other cofounders,
I'd guess there's usually no point in a technical co-founder "firing" their capable business co-founder; it just ends the company.
While the technical person is spending most of their time on technical bits (no matter how much customer-facing product management time you have), etc., the business person is spending most of their time on relationships (investors, partners, customers, etc.). To a large extent, they take those relationships and reputation with them wherever they go next.
Unless the technical cofounder has some very rare and marketable technical expertise that the business people recognize (e.g., some recent big AI invention, or a fancy title at a FAANG), the technical cofounder will probably be considered an ordinary commodity by most.
> IMO an MBA is not the kind of degree that is worthy of delaying founding a startup
My guess is that an MBA from one of the most prestigious programs is usually worth delaying founding a startup. The MBA student can lay some of the groundwork while in the program, get mentoring and connections, and then out-execute many competitors once the student graduates.
The kinds of startups a lot of us have been thinking of are essentially the last 20 years of mostly ZIRP investment scams, but that can't go on forever (current dotcom-bubble-like "AI" hype wave low barriers to acquihire exit notwithstanding). I'd guess more people will have to do viable businesses than our field has in a long time.