5 ms·

I'd go for a shorter version, but: yes, you are right on. Important points: 1. Have legal counsel 2. Deal with the issue now, not later. I'd get a lawyer and

I'd go for a shorter version, but: yes, you are right on. Important points: 1. Have legal counsel 2. Deal with the issue now, not later. I'd get a lawyer and fire the CTO. Small teams require absolute trust, and that is now breached. You'll find out in the process how the CEO aligns. Give your partner a heads up, but don't let yourself be moved from the task of firing the CTO.

orasis 13y ago
I want to highlight the trust issue. If there is an issue of trust, it must be dealt with immediately and decisively or the company will tank (and you don't want that because you want a successful business more than smug self-satisfaction).
sillysaurus3 13y ago
don't let yourself be moved from the task of firing the CTO Would that have a chance of ripping the company apart if the CEO was agreeing with the CTO? It seems like there's probably nothing to gain from the corpse of a company, so would it be better to avoid that?
- te_chris 13y ago
  He's not the only one who has to consider whether or not the company becomes a corpse in this situation though. Sounds like he's one of two founders, likely with some investors on board. All of these people (without the CTO who I'm guessing has no board seat and needs to shut up and learn his place) are tasked with ensuring the company has a future. Given that, the various parties are all equally responsible if they use this situation to tank the company.
- shin_lao 13y ago
  If the CEO agrees with the CTO, then the company is dead. It means the CTO is on a mission by the CEO, who was unable to speak directly with his cofounder.
  - sadfnjksdf 13y ago
    > the company is dead. No, it's not. It means the relationship between the cofounders is severely damaged. The company may be fine. Everyone is making the assumption here that what the CTO is doing is wrong. It may have been the right thing to do for the company. It is just the wrong thing for the OP. I think the OP should lawyer up, try to get fairly compensated for his contributions, and end the relationship. Business is unemotional. Those that invest their life into a business are emotional. Be true to yourself and it is ok to love what you do and enjoy who you work with and what you work on, but when it comes down to it, it is a job. Founders are no more special than any others. As soon as you start making significant progress from idea to product, ensure that you have clear written contracts setup. There should really be a site for those beginning their company that provides sample contracts and talk about about the pros and cons of each approach for ensuring that when relationships end, things are handled in manner civil and with prior understanding of how things work. It could only be a good thing, because the incentive will be there to work more effectively in order to contribute in a way that will end in value immediately and/or later, regardless of the outcome. There are a lot of people that specialize in helping people in this regard, but I can't think of a site that is specifically for the purpose I'm speaking of.
    - stormbrew 13y ago
      > Everyone is making the assumption here that what the CTO is doing is wrong. It may have been the right thing to do for the company. It is just the wrong thing for the OP. Barring the question of whether the OP is just lying about what's going on (so taking as given that the concerns raised are technical proficiency and that the CTO is asking the OP to leave the company and not just to lay off doing production coding work), I'm curious if you can explain under what circumstances this would be the right thing to do? Undermining someone like this strikes me as probably almost never the right thing for the company. It's toxic and destroys trust in all directions.
webwright 13y ago
If the CTO is a pro, he had the support of the CEO and the investors (board of directors) before he ever brought it up.
7Figures2Commas 13y ago
> I'd get a lawyer and fire the CTO. You're jumping the gun. First, the way that the OP has framed his story indicates that he's not sure how he wants the situation to be resolved. One of the first questions any good attorney will ask him is "How would you ideally like the situation resolved?" The attorney can suggest possibilities, but unless the OP knows what he wants, an attorney can only be of so much help. Second, based on what the OP wrote, it appears that he does question his capabilities. He says he's "not the best coder" and refers to technical and project management "problems we were having" that ostensibly developed while he was leading the company's development efforts. This should not be overlooked. Third, it's important to note that just because you're a co-founder doesn't mean that your employment can't be terminated, and just because your employment is terminated doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to be screwed out of what you have already earned. There's no indication here one way or the other that the OP's departure would involve funny business. Finally, and most importantly, it's very unlikely that an experienced CTO would ask a co-founder to leave unless he had the support of the other co-founder. At the end of the day, if the OP's co-founder has lost confidence in him and doesn't believe that he can contribute to the company in other ways going forward, the OP has a very big problem that firing the CTO won't solve. The fact that the co-founder apparently hasn't delivered this message directly and tried to come up with an arrangement that allows the OP and the company to part ways cleanly and fairly suggests that the co-founder lacks the character and moral fortitude to lead a company. The OP should have a conversation with an attorney, but he shouldn't forget about his opportunity cost. If you discover that you're not dealing with strong, ethical people, sometimes cutting your losses is the best approach. That can be hard to do, and it's not without risk, but people incapable of dealing honestly with their partners and employees, especially in difficult situations, don't usually have what it takes to build successful businesses anyway.
- trevelyan 13y ago
  A growing business could easily find a sinecurial position for a founder that had outgrown his or her usefulness: the only reason to jettison this guy in such an amateur fashion is to avoid paying his salary or position him for dilution in future funding rounds. My guess is that the CEO is dealing with investor pressure and the CTO has been parachuted in by whoever is funding them, likely on the understanding that future funding is contingent on making the hire and "improving the team". The fact that they are worried about keeping him on through the next round suggests that these promises aren't even reliable. In which case this is a malevolent power play and there is no good reason for him to roll over -- the most likely outcome of this all is that the company dies. And either way -- this is a really horrible decision on the part of the CEO as well. Because what happens to HIM once his technical cofounder is gone? He'll be reliant on raising capital to fund an even more expensive team and won't even have the option of saying no and going back to running the business with the original team, something which is the most likely GOOD outcome for any small business and the only option that gives them any real leverage against outside investors.

orasis 13y ago

I want to highlight the trust issue. If there is an issue of trust, it must be dealt with immediately and decisively or the company will tank (and you don't want that because you want a successful business more than smug self-satisfaction).

sillysaurus3 13y ago

don't let yourself be moved from the task of firing the CTO Would that have a chance of ripping the company apart if the CEO was agreeing with the CTO? It seems like there's probably nothing to gain from the corpse of a company, so would it be better to avoid that?

te_chris 13y ago
He's not the only one who has to consider whether or not the company becomes a corpse in this situation though. Sounds like he's one of two founders, likely with some investors on board. All of these people (without the CTO who I'm guessing has no board seat and needs to shut up and learn his place) are tasked with ensuring the company has a future. Given that, the various parties are all equally responsible if they use this situation to tank the company.
shin_lao 13y ago
If the CEO agrees with the CTO, then the company is dead. It means the CTO is on a mission by the CEO, who was unable to speak directly with his cofounder.
- sadfnjksdf 13y ago
  > the company is dead. No, it's not. It means the relationship between the cofounders is severely damaged. The company may be fine. Everyone is making the assumption here that what the CTO is doing is wrong. It may have been the right thing to do for the company. It is just the wrong thing for the OP. I think the OP should lawyer up, try to get fairly compensated for his contributions, and end the relationship. Business is unemotional. Those that invest their life into a business are emotional. Be true to yourself and it is ok to love what you do and enjoy who you work with and what you work on, but when it comes down to it, it is a job. Founders are no more special than any others. As soon as you start making significant progress from idea to product, ensure that you have clear written contracts setup. There should really be a site for those beginning their company that provides sample contracts and talk about about the pros and cons of each approach for ensuring that when relationships end, things are handled in manner civil and with prior understanding of how things work. It could only be a good thing, because the incentive will be there to work more effectively in order to contribute in a way that will end in value immediately and/or later, regardless of the outcome. There are a lot of people that specialize in helping people in this regard, but I can't think of a site that is specifically for the purpose I'm speaking of.
  - stormbrew 13y ago
    > Everyone is making the assumption here that what the CTO is doing is wrong. It may have been the right thing to do for the company. It is just the wrong thing for the OP. Barring the question of whether the OP is just lying about what's going on (so taking as given that the concerns raised are technical proficiency and that the CTO is asking the OP to leave the company and not just to lay off doing production coding work), I'm curious if you can explain under what circumstances this would be the right thing to do? Undermining someone like this strikes me as probably almost never the right thing for the company. It's toxic and destroys trust in all directions.

webwright 13y ago

If the CTO is a pro, he had the support of the CEO and the investors (board of directors) before he ever brought it up.

7Figures2Commas 13y ago

> I'd get a lawyer and fire the CTO. You're jumping the gun. First, the way that the OP has framed his story indicates that he's not sure how he wants the situation to be resolved. One of the first questions any good attorney will ask him is "How would you ideally like the situation resolved?" The attorney can suggest possibilities, but unless the OP knows what he wants, an attorney can only be of so much help. Second, based on what the OP wrote, it appears that he does question his capabilities. He says he's "not the best coder" and refers to technical and project management "problems we were having" that ostensibly developed while he was leading the company's development efforts. This should not be overlooked. Third, it's important to note that just because you're a co-founder doesn't mean that your employment can't be terminated, and just because your employment is terminated doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to be screwed out of what you have already earned. There's no indication here one way or the other that the OP's departure would involve funny business. Finally, and most importantly, it's very unlikely that an experienced CTO would ask a co-founder to leave unless he had the support of the other co-founder. At the end of the day, if the OP's co-founder has lost confidence in him and doesn't believe that he can contribute to the company in other ways going forward, the OP has a very big problem that firing the CTO won't solve. The fact that the co-founder apparently hasn't delivered this message directly and tried to come up with an arrangement that allows the OP and the company to part ways cleanly and fairly suggests that the co-founder lacks the character and moral fortitude to lead a company. The OP should have a conversation with an attorney, but he shouldn't forget about his opportunity cost. If you discover that you're not dealing with strong, ethical people, sometimes cutting your losses is the best approach. That can be hard to do, and it's not without risk, but people incapable of dealing honestly with their partners and employees, especially in difficult situations, don't usually have what it takes to build successful businesses anyway.

trevelyan 13y ago
A growing business could easily find a sinecurial position for a founder that had outgrown his or her usefulness: the only reason to jettison this guy in such an amateur fashion is to avoid paying his salary or position him for dilution in future funding rounds. My guess is that the CEO is dealing with investor pressure and the CTO has been parachuted in by whoever is funding them, likely on the understanding that future funding is contingent on making the hire and "improving the team". The fact that they are worried about keeping him on through the next round suggests that these promises aren't even reliable. In which case this is a malevolent power play and there is no good reason for him to roll over -- the most likely outcome of this all is that the company dies. And either way -- this is a really horrible decision on the part of the CEO as well. Because what happens to HIM once his technical cofounder is gone? He'll be reliant on raising capital to fund an even more expensive team and won't even have the option of saying no and going back to running the business with the original team, something which is the most likely GOOD outcome for any small business and the only option that gives them any real leverage against outside investors.