3 ms·

> 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 sit

> 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.

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.