[wpietri]

I agree with you entirely about the extent to which design is integral. I don't think design and making are effectively separable activities in software, especially at a startup.

But I think that doesn't mesh well with what a lot of people who identify as designers see as their role. From your portfolio you clearly don't fit the stereotype I'm describing, but a lot of self-identified designers (especially those with an agency background) want a lot of power to control others, rather than direct ability to create themselves. That is, they define "design" as something separate from coding, shipping, supporting, and studying the usage of a product.

That kind of hands-off approach to design won't work in a startup smaller that a dozen people or so; there just isn't enough of it to do. And even if there were, that sort of designer becomes a bottleneck, slowing iteration and reducing effectiveness. That's especially bad at small startups, because, as you say, at least one founder already believes they can do a lot of that work.

In your shoes, I'd look for a company where everybody is involved in product research, strategy, and prioritization. Sure, you'll do a lot of front end implementation to begin with, because that's what a startup needs. But if you also pick up some product tasks (e.g., organizing user tests, distilling site data into useful feature guidance, solving business problems via feature changes) I think you'll end up with the kind of involvement you want.

[kylebrown]

> In your shoes, I'd look for a company where everybody is involved in product research, strategy, and prioritization.

Speaking as one member of a three-person startup which is struggling to operate like this, I'm skeptical that such a company can work well. Three opinionated co-founders is a crowd; I can't imagine that having more would help. It might work in a case where there is a clear vision is which is shared by all members, but then the product development would already be more-or-less done.

There needs to be one founder or maybe two, who can lead the team by earning their trust. Loyal team-members will work like dogs; without that trust/loyalty (which again, needs to be bought or earned) you're herding cats.

The GP should find a compatible co-founder. With three co-founders (in our case at least), shipping a product is like stuffing three cats into one wrapped gift box.

[aapl]

I'm a big fan of the model of teamwork where everyone is welcome to offer their opinion on and spend a bit of time thinking about and working on any aspect of the product, but there are fairly clearly defined responsibilities regarding who has the final say on what goes to the final product. Or to put it other way, everyone is involved in everything, but each thing has only one person responsible for it.

[wpietri]

Works for us, anyhow. We have a clear mission, but the vision of the product is constantly evolving. The CEO/head of product does have final authority, but we are all definitely involved, and I think it's a very collaborative process.

It helps that we work very incrementally and are very data driven. Every commit goes live after the unit tests pass, and we commit every few hours. We don't have to agree on everything, just the thing we're testing next.