3 ms·
It sounds like you are not 100% committed to the startup. Personally if I was your co-founder I would be unhappy and an unhappy co-founder is not something that
by danieltillett 9y ago
It sounds like you are not 100% committed to the startup. Personally if I was your co-founder I would be unhappy and an unhappy co-founder is not something that I would want to have.
I think you need to decide if you are 100% committed or not and let your co-founder know. If you are not 100% in then find a way to ease yourself out so that you can be replaced with someone who is - it is better that you do this rather than wait for your co-founder to do it for you.
- notacoward 9y ago> It sounds like you are not 100% committed to the startup. Is "100% commitment" - in the sense of putting company before e.g. family - a necessary ingredient of a startup? Some people's 90% is worth more than other people's 100%, especially where domain knowledge is involved. There are even "lifestyle startups" in which none of the principals are devoting 100% to the company. Having been at ten startups, sometimes in leadership roles (though not a founder), I question the assumption that the problem here is with the "not 100% committed" founder. Maybe it's with the other founder's attitude that if they're putting in a certain effort then their partner must too - regardless of productivity, despite prior arrangements. That kind of attitude can turn into a race toward burnout, which is not good for anyone involved.
- siegel 9y agoWell, you can have a lifestyle startup, but not where it's a lifestyle startup for one founder and not the other...You are correct, however, that the OP might be sufficiently committed from the objective standpoint of contributing to make the startup successful. But if the two founders are not aligned on what "committed" means, that is a recipe for disaster.