It's still Entrepreneurship to be an early hire.

I commonly see on here posts about self-motivation, making your all-in jump, and not wanting to work for someone else, but still needing direction. I want to start the discussion around that being okay, but further than that, critical, to the success of an early stage venture, and thus, still Entrepreneurship.This solopreneur idea is hogwash and leads to more burnout and disillusion than anything. Even the great Steve's (Jobs and Woz) had each other, among others. Tesla was started by two guys you've probably never heard of that brought on Elon Musk, and no one batts and eye to call him and entrepreneur. Even Zuckerberg and the Bezos's had people in the background that made them what they were/are. Those people are still entrepreneurs.Their company, their paycheck, their and their families lives depended on making that company something. So they rolled up their sleeves and got to work. Yes, many took direction from someone else, but that doesn't mean they weren't Entrepreneurs. They staked their claim on their companies as much as the others and they had a voice there because they were a critical piece of that company doing something, even if they didn't have the co-founder title (though many of them did prior to growth).So I want to open the discussion to other business owners, early stage hires, those who couldn't do it alone, and the greater community to discuss what it means to be an entrepreneur? Can someone be and entrepreneur without going in alone? Can someone be an entrepreneur while taking direction? Where's the line?My vote is a resounding yes. I believe that those who jump all-in with me on ventures are just as much an entrepreneur, regardless of title or reporting structure. If their name, reputation, emotions, and livelihood are on the line as well, they are entrepreneurs in my book. see hubwealthy.com/wealthy