I disagree with the no partner philosophy. This is a good read.
I don't think having a partner is important primarily because they have XYZ complimenting skillset, or ABC connections. It's the brainstorming, talking out of stupid decisions and "cheer you up when things go wrong" that's important. The best partners are also people you know really well, like family or friends. The problem with partnering with a random guy, is you don't know their motives. You don't know what makes them tick, and there's unlikely to be much empathy there.
OP had a bad experience, but it wasn't really a proper partnership. Whilst they were friends, they were entirely disconnected. He was in another country, and was entirely responsible for getting leads onboard and closing. This means that as the company begins to do better, greed gradually takes over and it becomes more and more tempting to take the leads for yourself. I mean how would the "partner" ever know?
50/50 partnerships are bad, too. Even if you do 51/49, that's better than 50/50, as one person has the final say on a disagreement, which stops paralysis by analysis.
Very few hugely successful businesses have one founder.
Apple? 3 founders
Google? 2 founders
Yahoo? 2 founders
Microsoft? 2 founders
Oracle? 3 founders
Walmart? 3 founders (I think)
Shell? Came out of a merger of 2 companies
Standard Oil, which went on to become Exxon? 6 founders
Could go on and on.. There are a few exceptions, but the general rule is that the world's most successful businesses all have more than 1 founder.
If you're trying to create a small business that provides you with a comfortable existence, grow it organically and so forth, that's different of course, so far as slow and steady growth takes away many of the "drastic" decisions and rollercoaster ups & downs. Lots of small businesses have just the one founder.
1. Single Founder
Have you ever noticed how few successful startups were founded by just one person? Even companies you think of as having one founder, like Oracle, usually turn out to have more. It seems unlikely this is a coincidence.
What's wrong with having one founder? To start with, it's a vote of no confidence. It probably means the founder couldn't talk any of his friends into starting the company with him. That's pretty alarming, because his friends are the ones who know him best.
But even if the founder's friends were all wrong and the company is a good bet, he's still at a disadvantage. Starting a startup is too hard for one person. Even if you could do all the work yourself, you need colleagues to brainstorm with, to talk you out of stupid decisions, and to cheer you up when things go wrong.
The last one might be the most important. The low points in a startup are so low that few could bear them alone. When you have multiple founders, esprit de corps binds them together in a way that seems to violate conservation laws. Each thinks "I can't let my friends down." This is one of the most powerful forces in human nature, and it's missing when there's just one founder.
I don't think having a partner is important primarily because they have XYZ complimenting skillset, or ABC connections. It's the brainstorming, talking out of stupid decisions and "cheer you up when things go wrong" that's important. The best partners are also people you know really well, like family or friends. The problem with partnering with a random guy, is you don't know their motives. You don't know what makes them tick, and there's unlikely to be much empathy there.
OP had a bad experience, but it wasn't really a proper partnership. Whilst they were friends, they were entirely disconnected. He was in another country, and was entirely responsible for getting leads onboard and closing. This means that as the company begins to do better, greed gradually takes over and it becomes more and more tempting to take the leads for yourself. I mean how would the "partner" ever know?
50/50 partnerships are bad, too. Even if you do 51/49, that's better than 50/50, as one person has the final say on a disagreement, which stops paralysis by analysis.
Very few hugely successful businesses have one founder.
Apple? 3 founders
Google? 2 founders
Yahoo? 2 founders
Microsoft? 2 founders
Oracle? 3 founders
Walmart? 3 founders (I think)
Shell? Came out of a merger of 2 companies
Standard Oil, which went on to become Exxon? 6 founders
Could go on and on.. There are a few exceptions, but the general rule is that the world's most successful businesses all have more than 1 founder.
If you're trying to create a small business that provides you with a comfortable existence, grow it organically and so forth, that's different of course, so far as slow and steady growth takes away many of the "drastic" decisions and rollercoaster ups & downs. Lots of small businesses have just the one founder.