The Wooten Company: Fill & Download for Free

Interesting question. My experience tells me that the following skills are needed in the founding team.1) The Visionary (product person) who can execute on his/her vision. In a world where the simplicity of the user-experience is critical to the success of any product/company, this has become the most important skill in my opinion. In many cases this person has to be a dictator (think Steve Jobs). I personally haven't seen many great products created by committee. This person has to be able to work with and communicate with others to bring their vision to life.2) The Biz Person (organization and equity person) who understands how to structure the company and raise capital. 90% of entrepreneurs can not raise capital. This is mostly due to the fact that they don't understand equity and don't have the relationships in place to fuel their vision with the required financing to bring it to life. Nor do they understand how to communicate potential exit strategies to investors. Investors do what their money back.3) The Operator (manager of people) who can manage a rapidly growing organization. Successful startups today more than ever, grow in Internet time. Within 24 months companies are capable of going from zero to Groupon. Managing this growth and putting processes in place to enable rapid scale is a skill that is typically not found in many entrepreneurs. In the past this person could be hired much later, but in today's startup environment, this person needs to be in place soon after initial financing.The above three represent skills that can be prevalent in a single person, but usually require at least two distinct individuals. In many cases skills 1& 2 or skills 2 & 3 are found in a single individual but very rarely are skills 1 & 3 ever found in a single person. This is why most founders do not survive as CEO after their company reaches scale. Skills 1 & 3 typically come from people with very different career experience.

This is really a complex question.As an entrepreneur starting a company you have limited time, capital, and human resources during startup. So it is critical to focus like a laser to make sure that your vision is realized. Given your limited resources, focus enables you to increment your way toward achieving your goals. Distractions will dilute your focus. This is a fact.Remaining focused is even more important if you've taken seed capital from investors. As an entrepreneur, your earliest investors are backing you - not your company. Basically, you really don't have a company until it runs without you. So you have a fiduciary responsibility to your investors to get your startup at least to that point before diluting your time with anything else. Once your company is beyond startup and starting to scale, you'll have resources available to hire your replacement. At which time your role can shift to that of overseer of your company's vision and growth. Assuming you have found a capable replacement, you should be able to monitor the management team from a board position (think Chairman). This role shouldn't take much more than 10% of your time.Assuming you've done all of the above (which is not trivial), I agree that you can go off and start a new startup. If you are like most entrepreneurs (myself included) you are probably better at, and more excited by, the startup phase of company building. I'd also venture to say that many of the investors in your now growth stage company, will want to back you in your new startup.

I'd say no. It's not a good idea. Business isn't 50/50, it's based on a number of factors. I believe these factors should be acknowledged from the onset. Otherwise, "co-founders equity remorse" usually sets-in over the course of building the company when it becomes clear that one or more of the founders brought significantly more to the table.To try to avoid this, I've given a great deal of thought to this question and have come up with the following formula. It's not the gospel, but it has worked for me.20% for the idea40% for the ability to raise capital40% for executionThe Idea:The adage "ideas are worth nothing and execution is worth everything" is mostly true. If the originator of the idea has the ability to shepherd all of the resources necessary to bring the idea to market, then the idea is worth a lot. I'd say, 20% of the co-founders equity.The Ability to Raise Capital:This is significant. Many entrepreneurs never get their ideas off the ground because they do not have the ability to successfully raise capital. There are a number of factors that determine one's ability to raise capital.Some of these include:personal network (do any of the co-founders have relationships with potential angels who are willing to bet on them) People back people that they believe in - they bet on the jockey not the horse.repeat entrepreneur (are any of the co-founders repeat entrepreneurs with a successful exit, or a failure with a past company that they received funding for). Entrepreneurs tend to learn more from failures than they do from success. Wise investors understand this. As a result, a past failure can actually help your chances of getting funded.star quality (were any of the co-founders a rockstar at a successful company) In many cases, investors will be looking to back this person given their past association. i.e., a top engineer leaving Facebook or GoogleEach of these factors should be taken into account when dividing up equity among co-founders. Example: If only one of the co-founders is "fundable" based on one of the above factors, more than likely that founder will do the lions share of the fund raising. Which in my opinion is worth as much as 40% of the founders equity because in many cases, without funding, the business can not hire the necessary resources to become a business.The Ability to Execute:Translation - level of relevant experience. Among the founding team, who is best equipped to execute against the company's vision. In most cases, all co-founders bring unique talents to the venture that will be required to launch and grow the company. When this is the case, I think it makes sense to divide up this portion of the equity equally. Since execution is based mostly on work that will be done going forward.Example Scenario:Three founders start a company. Founder #1 has the idea and has some ability to execute on the idea. Founder #2 has a strong network of investors who will fund the company based on his/her involvement. Founders 1,2 & 3 all bring unique talents that will be utilized in building the company.Founder #1's equity: 20% for idea & 13.33% for executionFounder #2's equity: 40% for ability to raise capital and 13.33% for executionFounder #3's equity: 13.33% for executionFounder #1 receives 33.33%; Founder #2 receives 53.33%; and Founder #3 receives 13.33%To some degree this example over simplifies the equity argument but I feel that it provides a framework for having the dreaded discussion on how equity should be divided among co-founders.Necessary Co-founder Protection:Last but not least. When there is more than one founder, all shares should be forced to vest over a 3-4 year vesting schedule. This is to prevent any of the co-founders from being able to walk-away (not execute going forward) and keep all of their founders equity. As often happens with co-founders, someone doesn't complete the full journey with the company. It is important that that founder doesn't keep all of their equity if they are not involved in building the company over the long haul.In the event of an early exit (acquisition by another company) all un-vested founders equity should fully accelerate upon change of control assuming that the founder is still involved in the company at the time the change occurs.