5 ms·
It's clear that'd tom works differently than you two, so if you can, you should offer to buy him out. Or allow him to leave, but owning chunk of the company co
by lzw 16y ago
It's clear that'd tom works differently than you two, so if you can, you should offer to buy him out. Or allow him to leave, but owning chunk of the company commensurate with getting it off of thebp ground.
If these seem untenable, then you need to reach an agreement for working style that let's Tom feel coopmfortable. I believe the problem at it's core is trust. Tom wants to be able to plan ahead, and by not letting him do so, he is frustrated. He might be amendable to go with an agile process where you only plan ahead incept cycle, but he can't be expected to change during that cycle.
But you can't take this casually. You need to make an agreement among the three of you how your going to resolve this conflict. It is a legitimate conflict, and the art of management is working out agreements that take business reality into account.
- gogy 16y agoAs you mentioned, the core issue is one of the founders doesn't trust the other. I think it sounds reasonable to plan work in cycles/sprints which cannot be interrupted midway. I shall try to put this point across, and see if we all can reach an agreement.
- j_baker 16y ago"It's clear that'd tom works differently than you two, so if you can, you should offer to buy him out." I'm not saying that Tom shouldn't be let go, but he shouldn't be let go because he works differently. The thing that people have difficulty understanding is that these differences are good things. Everyone has blind spots. If you hire a bunch of people who work the same way, you all have the same blind spots and you're setting yourself up for a disaster. If you hire people who do work differently from you, you have fewer blind spots if you are willing to put work into it.