My startup crossed $2M/yr and now co-founder is going for a power grab

You have to play hardball. If someone else is being political and you try to avoid politics, you’ll get crushed. The fact that your co-founders are not getting involved means they don’t think your CUXO’s claims are outrageous— that’s a problem because you think you do.

Meet 1-1 with everyone, including the CUXO.

Tell them you don’t support this decision.

Ideally tell them you should be CTO. Making CTO a banner title will keep causing this issue again and again.

Don’t let people walk away from the 1-1 without supporting your claim or giving you a good reason why not.

Write your arguments first. Don’t get emotional. Make an entirely rational argument.

Don’t lose.

> Ideally tell them you should be CTO.

This.

Ask them all individually why they think the CTO position should exist, and what the role would entail, and what kind of person would be best suited for this position. You are all creating a new position at your company, do it properly.

After you have this information, find out why he thinks he is better suited for the role than you. From what you have said, you are a more suitable candidate.

Don't just let him invent a title for himself. Create the role and fill it with the most suitable person.

"CEO and COO said that didn't want to get involved and it was for me and CUXO to sort it out ourselves." That's a bad CEO.

> CEO and COO said that didn't want to get involved and it was for me and CUXO to sort it out ourselves.

uhm, no. CEO's job is to run the company and this is tearing it apart. he cannot shirk this responsibility.

very sorry you are running into this situation. sounds like the 5 of you were NOT full time up til recently? i would suggest recapitalizing the company if possible (i have no idea how this works) since your nonfunctional CDO probably has a chunk of the company in exchange for not doing much.

I went full time first about 2 years ago. Since then the remaining members have gone full time one by one with the CUXO being the last to go full time scheduled for July 1st.

CDO was bought out last year with his equity being distributed evenly.

>uhm, no. CEO's job is to run the company and this is tearing it apart. he cannot shirk this responsibility.

Yes, I agree. I'm hoping to resolve with without needing him to come in to mediate but it feels unavoidable and I think it will ultimately cause harm to the group. I'm also concerned because I feel like I need to start actively guarding against the CUXO from trying to encroach on my area in an attempt to assert himself as a "leader"

A good title to help further his career seems like a valid concern (even if the title itself may not be legitimate), but so are your concerns.

You could put the burden of finding a solution on him? Share your concerns - that you did the bulk of back-end technical work, and feel that giving someone else the CTO title would devalue it. If he can find a way to get a better title (CTO or something else) without devaluing other roles, then you would not object. Since he's the one that wants to change things, it seems fair that he come up with a solution.

Appreciate the reply.

I think this is probably the best approach, however I find it hard to believe there is a possible title that he could suggest that wouldn't similarly undermine me somehow.

I'm trying to avoid the conversation turning into an argument about whose done what for the company because I think it would irreparably harm our already tense working relationship, however I think without a doubt I have overwhelmingly been responsible for the companies success from a CTO perspective, especially since taking over the responsibilities of the former Chief Dev Officer. So much so, during client calls I'm often introduced as the CTO by our CEO. CUXO has had practically zero client interactions since he has so far not been working full time for the company.

Would CUXO be happy as Chief Product Officer? The whole thing sounds pretty silly, but if you want to be CTO, then CPO seems like a reasonable thing to offer CUXO (if you think he’s any good at product stuff, anyway).

If the CUXO is not a narcissist and does take the companies interest into account, this is probably the most cogent idea in the thread.

CUXO is obviously a ridiculous title as are both CDO titles.

Yeah this seems to make sense. You should have a CTO and CPO is also logical. If your startup is growing fast you should be changing the structure regularly and be ready to adapt to the change.

> So much so, during client calls I'm often introduced as the CTO by our CEO.

Sounds like you are already doing most of the CTO work and virtually getting recognized as such. Step up and claim the CTO position.

You have to weigh your personal benefit, against the benefit of keeping the company running somewhat smoothly (which is also in your interest). Assuming titles don't affect your current salary/equity in the company (you can get this in writing), it is only your future job prospects that are affected. The CUXO is probably (perhaps rightfully) worried his title sounds too unserious, and wants a better safeguard.

That said, changing the deal you had all agreed to at the start also makes working together harder. Instead of focusing on the company, you find yourselves also fighting among each-other, since the clear lines you had drawn up at the start are apparently up for negotiation. Good fences make good neighbors, as they say.

Note that I have no experience in such matters, I can only offer a fresh, hopefully clear, perspective. Good luck.

> A good title to help further his career seems like a valid concern

Not for the business.

Like others have said it’s at least the CEO’s role to work it out and if they said it’s not their problem then there are bigger concerns.

It's also important to consider that in a future interview, they are going to ask "tell me about your time as CTO at ExectuiveSuitDramaCorp?"

So it's not just going to be just a title. Responsibilities will shift towards the title. It is very much a power grab, and if they do not have the power, then that title will hurt them in the future.

Lawyer. Keep them on a short leash, they can fuck it up. At the very least consult one and pay for it up front not in arrears to some subsequent drama. Possibly even use a disposable good lawyer to avoid being over amped. If they know there's no subsequent business they may be more dispassionate.

It may be impossible to remain amicable once you lawyer up. Using "I saw a lawyer" or "I am seeing a lawyer" as a weapon won't help you.

Have you thought about a formal external mediator? Doesn't have to be a lawyer, could be interesting to facilitate the difference between you.

People want different things in life. Sometimes the differences are irreconcilable.

Do you have VC funding who you could discuss this with? Do you have a mentor? You probably need somebody in the business space who can advise you f2f not randoms online.

Not me. I tried to help a friend (at his request) in a situation around IPR and I fucked it up, he isn't a friend any more and nor is the other party. Don't want to be that guy ever again.

I think that's basically the nuclear option that I really want to avoid. I think it would cause irreparable damage to the group especially at this moment where it's very possible the company is about to significantly increase in value.

To be clear, I haven't had a talk with CUXO yet, so maybe I'll just explain my reasoning and he'll accept it. However, I don't feel like that's likely.

It's hard to explain but I feel like he's been planning this move for some time now. Little things, like inserting himself in some of my teams communications and insisting on us publishing final data to his db.

Unleashing your lawyer on him or the company would be the nuclear option, consulting one to know your options is fairly standard, if you don’t yet know how things could be (and I am assuming you don’t since you are asking on HN).

There are a lots of people who will always try to push a bit at the margin for their own benefits, and when it happens you can either yield, push back or stand firm. From your post it seems you want to stand firm, and exploring all the possibilities and rights you have will clear your mind on the next step. Short of you waiving all your rights, there are actually very few things that could happen in these kind of situation

I basically agree with this. Seek council, but do not weaponise it. Understand your (legal, moral, ethical) rights, and defend them.

Good luck.

Obviously based on my own prior experience in a mildly analogous space, I agree to its nuclear consequences/effects introducing third parties of any kind.

Some of what you say goes to a loss of trust and full disclosure to motivation and intent between you which is sad, but alas also very normal.

But I do suggest you at least seek advise from somebody you pay, to advocate to you, privately of what is normal and also necessary here.

I'm not sure what new advice a lawyer could give since we sort of already went through this last year when we bought out the Chief Dev Officers equity. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like I have a solid understanding of what our contract entitles us to. My main concerns are basically navigating this without dirupting the team dynamic as well as guarding against future attempts from CUXO to get power in the org.

Who is more replaceable? You or the cuxo?

What would happen if CUXO were to quit?

Who is more qualified to be a CTO between you and him going forward? i.e. If the company were to scale x2, x5, x10, would you or the him be able to fulfill the duty better?

Would the CEO and COO agree?

At what point do you need a dedicated CTO that is neither you or the CUXO?

How much leverage do you have over the CEO and COO? Does COO have your back?

There might be another way to look at it that could be really useful in this scenario. Rather than saying that you don't want it to happen, instead, ask yourself what changes would make it so that you would be okay with the change? For example, if the CUXO was willing to sign over half of his stake (10%) to you, would you be okay with him taking the CTO title? You could argue that giving him the CTO title will give him a future leg-up in career and earnings that you should be compensated as well. If the CUXO is not okay with that, than you have a good argument for keeping things the same.

You should fire this person, and do the startup with the rest of them. If the other two are too weak to address the conflict, it's a very bad sign for the outcome. Probably don't need a lawyer if they aren't even full time yet. Hopefully you guys all had 4 year vesting terms so they don't actually keep 20% of common.

Even if they could fire him, he'd already be 3/4 vested, and they'd have to go find someone else to handle the entire front end. It's possible that could make sense (if the front end is mostly built, and it would be more of a maintenance role), but it could also be very costly from an equity perspective.

What about co-CTO?

You might not want or care for the label yourself, but the reality is having the label "CTO" in a successful tech company means something. And while that label is not occupied I suspect you'll find individuals will continue to push for it.

Just my opinion, but I think either you take the CTO role yourself (and the additional responsibilities) or you share it. I don't think leaving it hanging there is sustainable long-term even if you win this argument.

I'll also add that you seem very well intentioned – the fact you want everyone to be equal and no one to having the title of CTO is admirable. But if you're not careful your good nature will be exploited. From what you've said here I worry you may already be doing more than 20% of the heavy lifting, but you're not allowing yourself to take credit for your work because you like the idea of everyone feeling equal. Please be careful about being too wedded to that. There's nothing wrong with getting the credit you deserve – whether that's a label or equity.

It's inevitable that you're going to feel hard done by if you're bringing a disproportionate amount of value while not getting a fair share of the reward.

Was going to suggest the same.

You can both then be "CTO" for credit-taking purposes, have your own specialisations, and should anyone ask for references later, it checks out too.

If you are that confident posting this to Hacker News that he won't read this then I don't think he is CTO material. lol

This sounds like it's ripe for the you-cut-I-pick process.

Ask him how much equity he would give up in order to have the CTO title. Then after he says how much he thinks the title is worth, you get to pick whether you give up the equity (to him) and get to be CTO, or whether he gets to be CTO but you get a piece of his equity.

Challenge him to a LeetCode duel. Winner gets CTO title and the loser's equity.

The Old Ways are clear on this. He must accept your challenge and honor the outcome.

I assume you are all board members also. It’s the job of the board to make sure silly stuff like this doesn’t get out of hand. Force the leadership team to make a decision.

By the way the sort of rules that dictate everyone will be equal or some title shall not be given, never last. The more you attach yourself to it, the more likely you’ll lose. Rather than sticking with “there should be no CTO”, just make the case for you being CTO.

The first backend developer is customarily the CTO. UX simply does not involve integrating as many systems. He doesn’t understand it and that makes him even less qualified. He’s a CPO at best.

This is why contracts exist. I hope the agreements you listed are written down.

1) If it’s not immediately clear who should have a CTO title and why, no one should have it. Would also think you should consider for no one to have a C-suite title except for the CEO with such a small team. You’ll need those titles to be available for when it matters for the company (it doesn’t yet).

2) The CEO needs to make the CTO decision for their team. They can take recommendations or arguments, but they can’t let this org structure problem fall to the team they manage.

This is the CEO's responsibility, but if he won't make a decision, you need to be the CEO here. What's best for the company? Does having him as CTO increase or decrease the likelihood you get to the next milestone? Does it enhance or degrade the team narrative? This is important for raising money if you plan to or attracting new talent. (It would also mean you would need to fire him to hire a real CTO if that need arises). If him as CTO hurts the team, the decision is that he can't be CTO. But, you should dig into why he wants this beyond vanity, because there may be other ways of making him happy. (For instance, when two founders are deciding on who's the CEO, oftentimes the one who is not the COO will be made "President". It doesn't really matter, but it makes people feel better).

Avoid working with people who care primarily about titles.

Is the CEO actually a CEO? I.e., does everyone else report to them? If so, they should get involved and help you resolve.

If they don’t want to, take your equity, cut your losses and move on.

It sounds like OP cares just as much about titles as the guy who wants to be CTO, tho.

If someone wants to wear an additional particular hat, what's the harm?

What's the voting or decision-making structure? Is there a leader? Do you get a say? What's your feedback culture like? Is there enough transparent honesty?

Personally, I don't care about titles. Assure people are making good impact in areas they are strong in and agree on who's doing what. If there are skill gaps, find solutions and work together, or hire what you absolutely need.

When real money gets involved amongst people who weren't previously all long-term friends, shit can happen. This is why is generally a bad idea(tm) to get into business "marriage" (founders or investors) with strangers.

Propose that an office of the CTO is created which would be responsible for high level technical direction and promoting technical excellence, and he could be in charge of and lead a dev or so in in that role. Jointly, a General Manager (GM) of Product Development role which reports directly to the CEO should be created, which you could step into. All development would be under that GM role, including the UX and DB teams. The product development team would be responsible for maintaining the existing product, as well as architecting new solutions and features.

If all he really wants is the title, this would give him that. Meanwhile, it gives you ownership.

Read the book "extreme ownership". Meditate on it for a couple days. Try to convince your CEO to read it too. It will pay dividends.

Read "the thin book of trust" as well since you don't trust them.

From an outside very detached perspective, it sounds like you fancy yourself CTO in all but title and this other person getting that title puts them above you on the dominance hierarchy for political rather than meritocratic reasons.

Clearly it's your CEO's responsibility to weigh in on this and it's an extreme (and I mean absolutely extreme) dereliction of their duties, a dereliction you should expect more of later. Where there's smoke...

I would definitely set your expectations early, so the path of least resistance for everyone is not the other person becoming CTO. It sounds right now you haven't made it clear that you will feel absolutely disrespected if they become CTO to a point where you will likely be too demoralized to continue (and if they become CTO, it will eat at you day after day, week after week, until you are cynical and useless, and at that point this other person will have completely dominated you, and you will have to come to terms with having submitted to someone else because they played politics better than you).

The CUXO's ambition not being tempered by reality while retaining such large ownership is an even bigger problem than your seemingly imminent demoralization.

> he said he deserved it because he setup the slack and gmail instances so that makes him CTO.

This is pretty extreme technical immaturity that shows lack of a greater understanding of what a CTO does and is.

I think the CEO needs a come to Jesus talk. I think you need to turn what you have explained as a "you vs him" problem into an "us vs the problem" problem. I think taking everything you've said at face value, the person suggesting "chief of product" for their title while you become CTO is probably what makes sense.

If I were you I would probably be feeling pretty troubled by a CEO avoiding their responsibilities, and hiring a person you explicitly don't trust.

I would also take a look at nonviolent communication (because what you say right now would definitely manifest as violent communication). If you express what you express right now, you will make CUXO and CEO defensive and if they are defensive, you (everyone really) have lost.

I would also consider asking the following in a probably more friendly way "how would you feel if you had 8 reports and made most of the technical direction decisions, and then somebody with 2 reports and significantly smaller technical contribution were named CTO?"

1st, congrats on $2M/yr accomplishment. Very few ever make it to that level, and far fewer do that in just 3-years.

——-

Some questions that might better influence someone’s response to you:

- Why did two founders recently quit?

- How is that 40% equity being handled (did they take the equity with them)?

- If the 2 departed founders didn’t take equity with them, do you now have 1/3 voting shares? (Since there’s only 3 founders left)

- Do you feel you deserve the CTO title?

- Why do so many people in the company want CTO title? What does CTO title represent to people?

- why do people care about titles when there’s only 17 employees (no intended disrespect with this question)?

There is no such thing as 4 people "equally" running a company, even if the equity is equally split, precisely to avoid these types of situations. If a majority of you (or whatever your charter says) are unhappy with the CEO, then you can change the CEO, but until then, someone needs to ultimately make decisions. Who do the two of you report to? Who is in charge? That person needs to figure this out.

I'd also ask everyone in the room: What's in the best interest of the business?

> CEO and COO said that didn't want to get involved and it was for me and CUXO to sort it out ourselves.

It seems like they're sending you a signal that the CUXO's argument has at least some merit. Last time they were aligned with you and this time they're telling you to sort it out yourself. Ask the CEO and COO is they have some feedback for you that they're holding back on.

Oh yes, the power of success.

I am sorry for you this is happening, at the same time: it is to be expected as soon as people start seeing|dreaming a lot of money and a legal loop hole.

I hope there is something in writing about the ownership of your company otherwise you stand a change to get out completely empty handed. The fact your CEO wants to keep his hands clean is a major indication to me.

There’s already a lot of valuable tips below, so I just will add that I have thought of the Co-CTO option as an alternative if that does justice to the situation. I also like the CPO alternative that has been suggested

This is a tricky problem given its a people problem in a company with only a few people. There seems to be some good advice in the comments here. Would you please post a follow-up and let us know how things went?

I think no one has the answer to your question. Everyone doesn't really know your team's personality and how many people agree/happy with his decision.

How about we vote on this?

What is your goal for the company?

Arguing about titles seems to me to about surface issues.

If he is arguing for the title because of his longer term career prospects he is already planning to leave.

Is this just about titles? Can you not be CTO and he can be Chief Product Officer or something that sounds better?

Executive Senior Chief Technical Officer President

Take the title instead, let him argue why he he deserves it more. Sounds like it's yours to lose.

Crazy that some people can’t just do the work lol come on man. Are titles really that important?

Titles are position within the dominance hierarchy, so they are very important. They determine who the default winners are in the game of politics.

When self interested people are in high authority positions, it hurts the company. When company interested people are in high authority positions, that is a small short term cost to leadership (because those people will be loyal to the company rather than the person above them) but a long term boon.

Keeping good relationship and supporting partners >> Worrying so much about silly titles.

Everyone should be “Co-CTO”

How about Co-CEO? Just go all the way. Chief Everything Officer.

Perhaps you could be co-CTO's. Fwiw I can see not liking CUXO

my startup had multiple CTO's at some point, it's not a bad solution either, have the CEO name two CTO's

maybe he's just seen the Blackberry movie and now getting new ideas, prepare for a rough landing