Ask HN: How do you evaluate non-technical co-founders?
There are tons of websites dedicated to finding technical co-founders, and basically none dedicated to the non-tech kind. And to some extent it's probably because there isn't a simple test you can administer to check whether someone would be good for the job. I mean, there are ways you can test someone's technical knowledge. But how to test whether a non-tech has the stamina to be a long-term team player, the playfulness to be a great evangelist, the cajones to be a good salesperson, and the drive to never become complacent or lazy? That they're smart enough to play the part, that they're competent to maintain good business sense and good social skills -- I mean, what's the test for that? A dinner and drinks doesn't seem enough to know it (let alone an email exchange or a 30-minute interview.) And moreover, a lot of times we think the ability to hype something is key, and therefore people who hype themselves well must be good at hyping something we're building. To a certain extent that's true, but it's missing a key component: Trust. Trust granted is inverse to a person's ability to hype themselves. Put another way, the best salesment are humble, and generate sympathy as well as respect and adulation. We've yet to see much humility, or even humanity, in the people applying for this role.
So how do you evaluate non-technical co-founders, if you're an all-tech startup? For the longest time we've maintained we don't need them at all, but it's becoming obvious that in some ways, we really do. But without hard and fast rules for evaluation, we're operating on gut instinct, which can only take us so far.
PS It seems like I fit the mold quite well so here is my shameless solicitation.
Think about it, a deaf/blind dude reading up on how to evaluate good music/dance. Or flip the problem, do you think a business guy, pure and pure, can read some stuff and then be able to judge which one of the guys on your team is the best hacker?
I know the skill set is different, but the concept is universal: you have to know a craft in order to appreciate it in order to know/tell the difference.
Instead, evaluate them on smart, getting stuff done and culture fit, and then have a techie friend who is really good evaluate their tech skills.
http://www.udel.edu/CSC/pdfs/behav_interview.pdf
The other is using your network and references to actually get informed opinions about candidates' long-term attributes.
Never wear your geek hat doing these types of things, you'll be putting them through the technical sieve and that, as I know you've already experienced, don't work.
Traction (nonsense marketing term; immeasurable hyperbolic bullshit; what you're in after a skiing accident) Domain experience (.com? .net? .social?) Marketing ability (ability to talk BS -- covered) Fundraising ability (as above) Product skill (uses the term metrics way too many times; "skill" with our product doesn't require Skill writ large anyway; that's the point of our product.) Respect for development (we hope so) Relevant connections or following (Dad? Mom? Facebook? We have those).
This, in short, does not help because it reads like what a non-technical co-founder needs to know to get a job with us, not what we need to find the right NTCF.
Then look at past performance in the areas that you expect them to work (making deals, raising money, sales, ...).
So then the question is: what do you need them for, specifically?