Almost all of these things apply to marriage as well, minus the bits about exit strategy. If you think committing to the same direction for 2-3 years is difficult, it's not time to get married yet!

Very often, the marriages where partners never considered nor discussed potential exit strategies should things not work out are the very same ones that, just like with the business partnerships where this is neglected, end up taking messy detours through the legal system on the way out.

I'm getting married soon, for me the right partnership is we're down for whatever comes up.. together.

A couple doesn't need to have the _same_ direction, they just need to have compatible ones.

For example, a programmer married to a doctor. They have two different directions, but if the only real compatibility requirement is that they live in the same city, then seems fine.

A couple absolutely needs the core directions to be similar. If what was meant is just professions, professions too, ultimately have to be compatible in a way that works for the couple.

Sometimes one career influences the ability for the other to exist. Sometimes both parties want to be location independent. Sometimes both careers are going strong and no one wants to give up or miss an opportunity.

Being in a long term long distance relationship for over 5 years at least in my one situation has drilled home: direction is relevant and important.

Having too many friends who are doctors and programmers:

- Having a incompatible schedule starts out as a small thing

- Small things become big things

- Big things become distance creators, emotionally, mentally, and then physically

- Then we wonder how we got here.

Hope I didn't add to the confusion from other comments.

I think what you're describing is exactly the same situation in which start up founders find themselves. The couple needs to agree on the direction and organization of their family, just like the founders need to agree on the direction and organization of their company.

For example, a couple needs to agree on:

* How to divide up responsibilities at home

* Expectations of income (who works? how much?)

* Whether or not to combine their income or keep it separate (and how will they spend it)

* Whether or not to have kids (and who will raise them)

* How to negotiate extended family commitments on both sides

I think your example of the programmer and the doctor underlines the need for more agreement than physical proximity. What if the programmer wants to quit her job and work full time on a start up idea, taking no salary for the next 3 years? The doctor will have to make adjustments in his lifestyle to accommodate that decision. If they are not headed the same direction, that would bring enormous pressure to the marriage.

Absolutely. I only used physical proximity because it's a clear example; even relationships don't even need physical proximity at all times. I myself have spent most of the year away from my long(est)-term partner, because we explicitly agreed to pursue other goals over proximity.

> A couple doesn't need to have the _same_ direction, they just need to have compatible ones.

To the extent that its true, it equally true of partnerships (unsurprisingly, marriage really is a kind of partnership.) They direction must be the same within the scope of the partnership (profession is outside the scope of the partnership in marriage), and the direction outside the scope of partnership must be compatible with the shared direction within the scope of the partnership.

Absolutely, I'm not saying this isn't true in a startup. I'm saying this tweaked 'scope' is the important part, not that the directions are identical.

It is a great point that partnering with a friend is generally dangerous. From my point of view partnering with a friend automatically give you two problems; you have to maintain a friendship while developing a demanding business relationship. The cost of loosing the friendship will make it harder to make demands and walk away if necessary, even if that is objectively the better path.

I would also caution against partnering with people that think their major contribution is the ideas, connections and/or management. If you are a founder, you execute and drive the company through execution. For a tech startup that means you either drive customer traction or make the software.

Good points.

I've had partnerships fail with friends. And have one succeeding right now.

What it taught me is that not all friendships can handle pressure and you are only friends to a certain depth, intensity, and commitment to each other.

It's a stoic truth that I think can be explained by those friendships that we maintain over the years with little to no effort... with whom spending 24 hours is more than spending months with the wrong people.

There is an absolutely necessity to being able to turn the friendship on/off as well as work. I didn't start working with a very close friend until we were in our early 30's, and I'm glad we waited. As mature as we already were, having 10 years away from each other working on projects has increased the appreciation on both sides of the tables.

This is a great list.

Re rounding out skill set, sometimes it's possible for a solo founder to make a couple key early hires. That lets you shorten this list. Some items still apply, but many don't.

Granted those folks won't have a founder level of commitment. But neither do the kind of half-hearted co-founders the OP wrote about. In fact one way to look at this is that some co-founders should be early hires, instead.

Agreed. If you can manage or cover these points some how, it's fine, but I've generally found them to be necessary in any successful project.

On a side note, sad face that another thread has been taken towards a tangent of exploring marriage instead of partnerships, maybe I shouldn't have said that :)