Co-author, not employee: how to build a partnership with a business owner

When a business owner searches for a senior executive, they're solving a problem that's hard to articulate in a job description. They need someone to share the weight of uncertainty. Not delegate tasks or distribute functions, but genuinely share: so that someone else thinks about the business as their own, makes decisions when there's no right answer, and bears the consequences alongside them.

One CEO put it this way: "I had two finalists, both could do the job. I picked the one who asked me questions I didn't know the answer to, and when I described what I wanted to do, he gently pushed back and suggested something different. I needed someone who would think, not just agree."

Such people are rare. Most candidates, even very strong ones, arrive in one of two modes. The first is the competent executor who reliably handles their part but leaves strategic responsibility upstairs. The second is the ambitious professional building a career who will be effective as long as the company's trajectory aligns with their own. Both modes are useful, but neither relieves the owner of what they most want to shed: the burden of carrying key decisions alone.

The third type — the co-author — is uncommon. And owners have learned to recognize them not by résumé or standard interview answers.

What the owner is really trying to understand

Richard Branson writes in The Virgin Way: "A good CV is important, but if you could hire based on what people write about themselves on paper, why waste time on interviews? I've always believed the most important thing is personality fit. Will this person mesh with the company's culture in their way of being, sense of humor, overall approach to life?"

Behind this lies a deeper question: how will this person behave in a situation I cannot predict? The owner looks for signals: how the candidate thinks, how they make decisions, what matters to them when there's no clear answer.

Jeff Bezos used to ask interview questions like "estimate the number of window panes in Seattle." Not because he cared about the answer. He watched how people think under pressure, whether they're willing to reason aloud, acknowledge uncertainty, move forward without complete information. Ann Hiatt, whom he hired after just two questions, later said: "He was measuring my potential by testing whether I had the grit and courage to jump with him and level up."

How readiness for partnership gets recognized

Someone capable of sharing responsibility talks about their experience differently. They don't construct a perfect success story where every decision turned out right. They discuss mistakes calmly, explain the logic behind choices that didn't work, and what they took away from them. This kind of conversation requires inner stability: only someone who has already accepted that responsibility includes the right to be wrong can acknowledge a mistake without crumbling or getting defensive.

Another marker is how they respond to uncertainty. When an owner describes a situation with no obvious solution, some candidates start asking clarifying questions, gathering additional inputs, searching for missing data. That's a normal analytical approach, but it signals a habit of working within frames that someone else has already set. Others react differently: they start thinking aloud, proposing hypotheses, discussing risks of different scenarios. These are people accustomed to making decisions before the picture is complete.

A third sign is the nature of the questions the candidate asks. Questions about processes, structure, and KPIs indicate someone who wants to understand their zone and work within it. Questions of a different kind — "what's the main constraint on growth right now," "what decision have you been postponing," "where does the system break down" — reveal someone trying to see the business whole, looking for ways to be useful beyond their formal role.

What this looks like in an actual conversation

Say the owner describes a problem: "We're growing 30% a year, but operations can't keep up, the team is burning out, quality is slipping."

The executor's response: "Got it. Which processes would you like me to fix?"

The careerist's response: "Interesting. What's the budget for the team? What KPIs will you use to evaluate my performance?"

The potential co-author's response: "I've seen this before. Usually it means you have to choose: either slow down growth and strengthen the foundation, or keep growing and accept that it's going to hurt for a while. Have you thought about which direction feels right? Because they're different strategies requiring different types of people in this role."

The difference isn't that one answer is "correct." The difference is positioning: the first waits for a task, the second negotiates terms, the third enters the context and starts thinking alongside the owner.

The dissolution trap

The desire to become "one of us" for the owner can backfire. Some candidates try so hard to demonstrate loyalty and partnership readiness that they start adapting: guessing expectations, agreeing with everything, avoiding any tension in the conversation.

This isn't partnership — it's mimicry. An experienced owner recognizes it and doesn't trust it. Because they need someone with their own weight, capable of saying "I see it differently" and explaining why.

Susan Armstrong, a tech company founder, puts it this way: "Every entrepreneur needs people who share their vision. But I find it hard to trust and delegate. I know I want a partner, but when someone agrees with everything, I don't feel I can lean on them."

The balance looks like this: shared goals, but independent thinking. Willingness to take responsibility, but not willingness to take any responsibility on any terms. Loyalty to the work, not blind devotion to a person.

How to tell if the owner is ready for partnership

Partnership is a two-way structure. Not every owner who says they're looking for a partner is actually ready to share.

Red flags during the interview:

The owner talks only about tasks, not authority. If the conversation is heavy on "you'll be responsible for" and light on "you'll decide," that's a signal. Responsibility without decision-making power isn't partnership — it's a trap.

The owner can't explain why things didn't work out with previous people in this role. Answers like "they couldn't handle it" or "we didn't click" without specifics are risky. A pattern the owner doesn't recognize will repeat.

The owner avoids discussing how disagreements will be resolved. If the question "what if I see a situation differently than you?" is met with a pause or abstractions, there's no mechanism in place. The first real conflict will be a stress test, and you don't know how it will go.

The owner shifts into "we're a team" mode too quickly. Excessive warmth at the first meeting, compliments, the feeling of "finally found my person" — this might be genuine, or it might be the pattern of someone who charms and then becomes disappointed. Ask how long previous people in key positions lasted.

A case that illustrates the mechanics

In 2025, Meta launched the most aggressive hiring campaign in tech industry history. Mark Zuckerberg personally reached out to leading OpenAI researchers, offering packages up to $300 million over four years, with signing bonuses of $100 million. And it worked: at least ten key researchers moved to Meta's new Superintelligence Labs, including people behind the creation of GPT-4 and the o1 model.

Altman responded with a memo to staff, calling Meta's actions "distasteful" and predicting they would lead to "deep cultural problems." His phrase "missionaries beat mercenaries" spread through the media, but against the backdrop of actual departures, it reads more like defensive rhetoric.

What's more interesting is this: despite the power of Meta's offers, some researchers did turn them down. And there's a parallel countercurrent: people are 8 times more likely to leave OpenAI for Anthropic than vice versa. Anthropic doesn't pay the most, doesn't offer nine-figure bonuses, but consistently wins the competition for a certain type of person.

What type? Apparently, those for whom authorship and influence over the product matter more than the size of the package. At Anthropic, researchers are closer to decisions, there's less bureaucracy, a stronger sense that your work directly shapes the outcome. For someone who has already tasted co-authorship, moving to a structure where you become an expensive resource feels like a demotion — even if the numbers say otherwise.

This case isn't about money not working. It works, and Meta proved it. It's about a certain category of people for whom there's a currency that can't be printed: the opportunity to bear responsibility for something real.

The first 90 days: how not to lose the position

Suppose you entered a partnership position during the interview. The owner saw a co-author in you and made an offer. Now comes the harder part: maintaining that position in actual work.

The main mistake in the first months is waiting to be given authority. A co-author doesn't wait for permission. They see a problem, formulate a solution, come to the owner not with "what should I do?" but with "here's how I see the situation, here's what I propose, here are the risks, here's why I think it's worth it." The owner might agree, adjust, or reject — but the very fact of this kind of conversation reinforces the partnership dynamic.

The second mistake is avoiding conflicts with the owner. A former Y Combinator partner describes it this way: "I realized too late that the rift with my co-founder was entirely preventable. We stopped spending time together because we were avoiding conflict. I wanted so badly for us to be a great team that I skipped the hard work required: facing conflict and resolving it."

This applies to the relationship between a senior executive and an owner as well. If you sense something is wrong but stay silent to preserve good relations, you're already losing the partnership position. A co-author raises problems even when it's uncomfortable.

The third mistake is not documenting agreements. A verbal "yes, of course, you decide" is easily forgotten. When the owner is stressed or under pressure, they may remember things differently. A brief email after the conversation — "as we discussed, I'm moving in this direction; let me know if anything has changed" — isn't bureaucracy. It's protecting the relationship.

The cost and risks of the co-author position

Partnership with an owner isn't just opportunity. It's also vulnerability.

What you gain if it works: influence over the business that's impossible to get in a corporation. The chance to build, not just maintain. A relationship where you're seen as an equal, not a function. Often — a share in the outcome, whether equity, profit-based bonus, or something else.

What you risk losing: predictability. In partnership with an owner, there's no "just do your job and go home." You're emotionally invested, you carry weight, you wake up at night thinking about the business. This can be fulfilling or draining — depending on how consciously you entered it.

What happens if the owner turns out to be the wrong one: you'll spend a year or two on a relationship that won't deliver what it promised. Worse — you might lose your reputation if the parting is contentious. Statistics show that 65% of startups fail due to co-founder conflict. The numbers aren't better for owner-executive relationships.

How to minimize the risk: before accepting an offer, talk to people who worked with this owner before. Not the ones they name as references — the ones you find yourself. Don't ask "what kind of leader are they," ask "how do they behave when things go wrong" and "how did you part ways."

Closing

A partnership position with a business owner isn't a prize awarded to the best candidate. It's a way of relating that either works for both sides or doesn't work at all.

If this is what you want, start by understanding that the owner isn't looking for an employee but for someone to share the weight with. Show that you can carry it: think aloud, talk about your mistakes without defensiveness, ask questions that reveal you see the business whole.

But don't forget to evaluate the other side. Not everyone who says "I need a partner" is ready to share. Look for signs that the owner can trust, accept disagreement, grant authority along with responsibility.

When both sides are ready, what begins is worth the search: work where you're not just completing tasks but building something together with someone who risks alongside you.