[vicbrooker]

Steve Blank was recently in Melbourne and said that his opinion was that 'experienced' was a better adjective than 'failed' for founders who have stopped working on a startup. It's a nice perspective.

Personally I agree, but would add a single caveat. I consider a founder 'experienced' when they have made a good faith effort to attempt solving a difficult/worthwhile problem. Someone who succeeds at someone pedestrian isn't terribly interesting and neither is someone who tried to build the hyperloop with paper mache for a week.

So, my advice is to ignore the title and give weight to the particular characteristics of their startup. The presence or absence of success is far less relevant than what they were trying to achieve and how they executed. I would pick someone who got to 80% of a home run over anyone who succeeded at hitting to first base. Ask questions about how they executed, the unique problems they faced and why they picked their vertical - this will tell you more about them than a snap judgement based on whether they were a CEO or a President.

On a side note, I would generally consider managing to found a company that survives for 1-2 years (full time) while tackling a hard problem as a demonstration of above average/high capacity. I would definitely look into them.

Again, depends on the context of your workplace, and the context of what they actually worked on.

Hope this helps.