"You need a co-founder." This is a common motto in the tech industry. Everyone is searching for their business soulmates—people who share their vision and will help create the next big thing. These individuals will become your business family, and together you will weather the challenges of turning your idea into a successful company.
However, the real world is different—finding your business family can be as difficult as finding your real one. People come and go with various intentions. Unfortunately, some have malicious motives, while others are simply unprepared for the rush and stress involved in the daily operations of a startup.
During my last holiday in the mountains (yes, I am an avid mountaineer), I had an interesting thought: how dangerous is a one-person enterprise to its competition? Do people need a co-founder at all? Is this setup sustainable?
The truth is, in my almost 20 years of experience in the field, I've seen some remarkably successful solo enterprises. These one-person operations have managed to outcompete larger companies and thrive.
Let's explore this topic in the following paragraphs and question the current dogmas once again.
Smaller teams often thrive due to their ability to act unpredictably and swiftly. Similar to a sole soldier who can strike without warning, a solo entrepreneur can launch innovative products or services quickly, catching larger competitors off guard. Without bureaucratic inertia, these individuals can adapt and pivot rapidly, making them highly unpredictable. In contrast, larger competitors, burdened by complex decision-making processes and slower response times, often struggle to match this agility.
Innovation is seldom the product of large teams. In the IT world, there is the myth of the 10x programmer — an exceptionally talented individual who can work ten times faster than their peers, producing code, documentation, and other deliverables with remarkable speed.
However, it is rarely mentioned that these programmers often perform best in small teams or even alone, as they are significantly slowed down by the bureaucracy coming from larger team operations.
This principle applies to entrepreneurship as well. I have seen enterprises severely hindered when they attempt to operate in larger groups.
A successful business must be built on a solid foundation. Regardless of the size of your enterprise, you need resources and effective management to create value. A one-person business requires masterful resource management. These entrepreneurs often wear many hats, mastering tasks from product development and marketing to finance and customer service.
Following this line of thought - every wannabe can start a business - the difference is that a professional will be in action years later because they can optimize their resources efficiently and cut corners where others can not. Their ability to allocate efficiently and maintain operations alone enables them to sustain their business in challenging conditions where others (including larger companies) might struggle.
The psychological impact of a one-man army enterprise on its competition should not be underestimated. Larger competitors may view these solo ventures as minor nuisances initially, only to realize the substantial threat they pose as they gain traction. The determination and drive of a lone entrepreneur can be daunting, often inspiring admiration and fear in equal measure. This psychological edge can disrupt the complacency of established players, forcing them to reconsider their strategies and approaches.
Moreover, many solo entrepreneurs burn their bridges entirely, making starting a business a one-way ticket with no easy return to traditional employment. Employers tend to avoid hiring individuals with an entrepreneurial background, possibly considering them only for contractor roles. However, most start-up founders will go to great lengths to avoid this situation.
A trained one-man army entrepreneur understands these dynamics and plans accordingly. He would avoid actions from which he cannot extricate himself, depending on his purpose and strategy.
Many solo entrepreneurs are driven by a passion for their work and a desire to make a positive impact. However, the intensity of competition can sometimes lead to ethical dilemmas. While a solo enterprise can push boundaries and innovate, it must also navigate the fine line between aggressive competition and ethical conduct. Maintaining integrity is crucial for long-term success and reputation in the market.
Unfortunately, many of the bigger players in your industry won't follow these ethical guidelines. They may try to gather information from you and your team, reverse-engineer your product, or even attempt to copy your innovations. I've witnessed some unbelievable actions by large companies.
A trained one-man army entrepreneur would have developed a filter to identify and halt such activities at their inception.
A one-man army enterprise can be a formidable adversary for its competition. With their agility, resourcefulness, meticulous planning, and psychological edge, solo entrepreneurs can disrupt markets and challenge established players effectively.
However, the thing all wannabes never seem to get is that entrepreneurs hate to be alone. Entrepreneurs do not train for one-man missions, barring their honeymoon. One-man army would be scary. Three-men army would be the smallest effective company unit, and then your competition really has a problem on their hands. At the most basic level, there would be no such thing as “catching him sleeping” or “sneaking up behind him.” On a more advanced level, diversification becomes possible, a sick leave no longer stops the rampage, and you activate some nice team strategies as buddy-buddy system or even pair working.
The only challenge is finding the other two... Until then, solo entrepreneurs should operate independently. It's better to be a one-person team than to collaborate with uncommitted wannabes.
Feel free to share your comments and suggestions via email at gospodin@bodurov.net.
You have a start-up? We can help!