Ok, got you. I can answer these. Indeed, it is not representing all fast growing companies all around the world. However, it doesn't have to. Like I said in the post, there is no reason to believe that biases how many founders they have. Companies with two founders are not more likely to submit themselves to such a report. Anyway, almost all of them are businesses generating tons of revenue. A large percentage of them are public companies and many are 10-15 years old. Feel free to look them up.
A founder is someone listed as a co-founder either on the management page, Wikipedia, or in press mentions. It's not really slippery. It took so much time because I wanted to make sure I was doing it right.
In your position I'd have pointed out that the data set shows a clear departure from Benford's Law, suggesting that something about single founders is weird.
> Like I said in the post, there is no reason to believe that biases how many founders they have.
Different cultures have different ideas about individual risk and teamwork.
> tons of revenue ... 10-15 years old.
Gosh, you mean young companies have more scope for rapid growth and therefore wind up on a self-selected list of rapidly growing companies?
In no way could this sample be biased against failed young companies.
Also unanswered: are there fewer single founders because there are fewer single founders to begin with, or is it because they fail more often?
Comments
Ok, got you. I can answer these. Indeed, it is not representing all fast growing companies all around the world. However, it doesn't have to. Like I said in the post, there is no reason to believe that biases how many founders they have. Companies with two founders are not more likely to submit themselves to such a report. Anyway, almost all of them are businesses generating tons of revenue. A large percentage of them are public companies and many are 10-15 years old. Feel free to look them up.
A founder is someone listed as a co-founder either on the management page, Wikipedia, or in press mentions. It's not really slippery. It took so much time because I wanted to make sure I was doing it right.
In your position I'd have pointed out that the data set shows a clear departure from Benford's Law, suggesting that something about single founders is weird.
> Like I said in the post, there is no reason to believe that biases how many founders they have.
Different cultures have different ideas about individual risk and teamwork.
> tons of revenue ... 10-15 years old.
Gosh, you mean young companies have more scope for rapid growth and therefore wind up on a self-selected list of rapidly growing companies?
In no way could this sample be biased against failed young companies.
Also unanswered: are there fewer single founders because there are fewer single founders to begin with, or is it because they fail more often?