4 ms·

Assume positive intent. They might not be out to fuck you -- they might just not have thought about it from your perspective. Let them know that you think it's

Assume positive intent. They might not be out to fuck you -- they might just not have thought about it from your perspective. Let them know that you think it's unfair because you're diluting much more than them proportionately. Help them understand that you're in this for the long run (even if you're not sure, founders want to hear that: stability in senior team is something they value) and you want to be incentivised. Many founders tend towards underestimation of problems and overestimation of their own abilities, and they may interpret seed money as an opportunity to replace you. You were a guy who joined when they didn't have access to the hiring market. Now they have money they will have a bit more access.

lucb1e 12y ago
> Assume positive intent. Hmm. You could assume intentions, but since you don't know their intentions, it shouldn't affect your decisions much.
kordless 12y ago
As much as I support the power of positive thinking, someone should never make assumptions about anyone's feelings - good or bad. You should assume all possible outcomes and state what you want for yourself. If you have legal precedent for defending what you want for yourself, you should use it.
- jtbigwoo 12y ago
  The OP's language makes it seem like the relationship is already strained and he is isolated from the founders ("half-baked", "shit money", "feeling helpless") while still wanting to continue with the company. This negotiation is wrapped up in two things: 1) the financial issues and 2) the OP's value to the company. I think point 2 is the trickier part. Others have already suggested a few ways that the financial issues could be resolved, but he also has to get his relationship with the founders into a better state. If the relationship stays strained, it's only a matter of time before the next issue sets this whole process off again. Especially when we're feeling isolated, rearranging our own mental state often starts the process of claiming the power to fix the relationship. Let's say they negotiate and his equity stake is cut back to 8.5% while the others give up 5.25% each. His narrative of the negotiation could be, "They tried to screw me again and I barely held on" or it could be "They gave up more money, I gave up a bigger proportion." Even though the finances don't change, the first response maintains the status quo while second response starts the process of reclaiming the relationship. (Sorry for the male pronouns if you're not a male, OP. Writing he/she is annoying and I'm lazy.)

lucb1e 12y ago

> Assume positive intent. Hmm. You could assume intentions, but since you don't know their intentions, it shouldn't affect your decisions much.

kordless 12y ago

As much as I support the power of positive thinking, someone should never make assumptions about anyone's feelings - good or bad. You should assume all possible outcomes and state what you want for yourself. If you have legal precedent for defending what you want for yourself, you should use it.

jtbigwoo 12y ago
The OP's language makes it seem like the relationship is already strained and he is isolated from the founders ("half-baked", "shit money", "feeling helpless") while still wanting to continue with the company. This negotiation is wrapped up in two things: 1) the financial issues and 2) the OP's value to the company. I think point 2 is the trickier part. Others have already suggested a few ways that the financial issues could be resolved, but he also has to get his relationship with the founders into a better state. If the relationship stays strained, it's only a matter of time before the next issue sets this whole process off again. Especially when we're feeling isolated, rearranging our own mental state often starts the process of claiming the power to fix the relationship. Let's say they negotiate and his equity stake is cut back to 8.5% while the others give up 5.25% each. His narrative of the negotiation could be, "They tried to screw me again and I barely held on" or it could be "They gave up more money, I gave up a bigger proportion." Even though the finances don't change, the first response maintains the status quo while second response starts the process of reclaiming the relationship. (Sorry for the male pronouns if you're not a male, OP. Writing he/she is annoying and I'm lazy.)