Ask HN: How would you fire a cofounder, when you aren’t one?

The other issue to keep in mind is that the equity compensation is also tied to the amount of risk people are taking when joining the startup. When this technical co-founder started a company the risks were very high: there was basically nothing there, no product, no team, no investors, and no customers. When the current engineers are joining, the risks are obviously there, but they are smaller risks. This would at least partially explain the difference in equity levels.

Having said that, it would be a mistake to keep this co-founder in the same technical role as incoming top notch engineers. He really needs to assume a different role: for example product strategist, technical strategist, architect, etc... Whatever would fit with his skills.

As for running him off the company, think of it this way: without his early contribution, neither you nor later engineers would have a place to work. Of course, it's a balance and he needs to step up his game and find a place in the company to be useful, enthusiastic and inspiring to other people, which commensurates with his abilities. Otherwise, he will be nudged out towards the exit.

I hope this helps ...

You're lead engineer. You're a valuable contributor. You've got a problem. Your CEO has offered very reasonable advice. I recommend re-evaluating the reasons you have given for rejecting it. If the company is any good it is likely that the CEO has discussed the issue with the board and the cofounder. Any board worth its salt would see fucking over a cofounder as the kiss of death. Risk of lawsuit dampens enthusiasm for future investments, while a buyout burns through cash for no value except in a case where the cofounder is actively harming the company...and in that case the company is almost certainly already hosed.

As you acknowledge, there may have been a misalignment between your expectations and talents and those of the company. It's an experience worth learning from.

You're the lead engineer. A lead engineer's role is not restructuring the cap table. The focus on programming chops underpinning your argument and clawing at a little pie instead of making the pie bigger suggest a narrowness of view that seems to be missing the bigger picture.

Good luck.

I really appreciate this frank advice.

I think your discussion of business risks has best reflected the reality upon me: because he is a cofounder, he can't just be simply fired.

(Incidentally my original title was "[How] would you fire..", i.e., I have doubt about the very question.)

  The focus on programming chops underpinning your argument 
  and clawing at a little pie instead of making the pie bigger 
  suggest a narrowness of view that seems to be missing the 
  bigger picture.

Well, I'm bringing a binary/myopic-seeming view of the problem to HN, when in reality it's far from my biggest day-to-day concern. All of my time is spent "growing the pie" and even working to cultivate this engineer.

  It's an experience worth learning from.

Indeed..

The CEO has put a solution on the table. If you trust the framework in which the CEO is making their decision, then it is easy to take this point of startup stress out of your life. You have said that this is not the biggest fire in your forest. It ain't ever gonna be perfect. Today it just has to be good enough not to die.

Having a founder who is willing to hire people smarter than themselves is a good thing. It's a long way until the biggest problem is determining the best way to roll around in a pile of money.

Thank you. This attitude helps.

You know, as a technical co-founder I honestly hope I never encounter your "type" as things progress through stages of a company. Have you talked to him about it at all and gotten his point of view?

You have to understand that when he first started the company, it was him hustling and grinding away to even get it to where you could even be hired. Without this co-founder the company was literally NOTHING. This isn't to excuse his performance or the implications, but I feel like you're severely lacking some respect for the situation. As a company grows the role of the founder starts to change. And he should recognize that there are specializations and areas that he's lacking in, which is why he's looking to diversify the team in the first place.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the best at certain tasks, but I'll be damned if some engineer I've hired comes in and wants me "fired" because they are somehow better at doing a certain task than I am when that's the exact damn reason I've hired them. It's one thing if he's grossly incompetent and actively harming the company, but what you seem to be describing isn't the case.

If you're first thought is that he should be fired because of his programming chops aren't as good as yours then I think you're missing the entire point. The CEO has already acknowledged the situation and offering solutions that you all can mutually work together with. Is it compensation? Or just this perception that the CTO must be the better than you to respect his decisions?

/rant

I appreciate your rant (and someone else said, I sound like an "alpha male" jockeying for position - that's a first in my career, but I guess I'm grateful for the disguise!)

I think it's difficult to defend what's gotten me to even consider this question - after months of looking for better solutions - without getting too detailed.

  Without this co-founder the company was literally NOTHING

I just want to give this as an example -- this is not nearly the origin story of the company. I know you are picturing a classical founder and founding story and, well, it's different.

Thanks everyone for the advice!

Good founders hire people better than they are themselves.

It's pretty rare to see that kind of effort be paid back my a cuckoo maneuver like this. You owe your job to this guy, have some decency.

Imagine if every start-up started firing founders because they hired people that are better at some element of the running of the company.

Also: if I were the CEO of this company and you came to me with your request to 'fire a founder' I'd most likely fire you and replace you with someone more aware of their place in the universe. It's not as if you got named to the board of directors and were given a majority share when you got your job.

You're lucky your CEO is either very diplomatic or a little lightweight.

  It's pretty rare to see that kind of effort be paid
  back my a cuckoo maneuver like this. You owe your
  job to this guy, have some decency.

I appreciate yours as good generic advice. Like a few other posters, you're (understandably) viewing this as a lone cowboy jockeying to replace an otherwise well-qualified and conscientious leader, with the limited and somewhat filtered information I've given.

But we are being vastly too charitable to our imaginary subject. He's already been functionally banished by the team, and rarely comes in to the office. So the question is more about how to deal with an already-acknowledged lame duck, and its effect on the team, given my pay grade.

I didn't intend to follow up further because I've gotten what I needed here (thanks again!). But I wanted to try to restore some of your faith in the world that there is one less cowboy out there. I hope seeing that I'm anonymously seeking advice and not doing something brash is also some sign of that..

From my limited perspective, it doesn't sound like it's your decision to make. If you've made your opinions clear to the CEO, that's great and you've already fulfilled your duty. Let the co-founders sort it out between them, it may take time to transition the lackluster technical co-founder into a new role. If business is going well, it's unlikely he would leave the company though given he is probably got a while left to vest. As long as he isn't hindering your work and creating infighting/tension in a power struggle, it doesn't sound like he's a problem.

Honestly, it sounds more like you're jealous of his compensation relative to yours. Has your compensation been adjusted since you started working there? If you're now doing the work of a co-founder, you should be compensated as such. If your role truly has escalated, they shouldn't take issue with you asking to have an adjustment made to your compensation in recognition of that.

  Honestly, it sounds more like you're jealous of
  his compensation relative to yours

I know it's hard to sound convincing, but trust me, I'm not: I am well-compensated (and negotiated for such), perhaps even more than he (don't want to get too detailed here).

Where I am upset about compensation is that we've hired an engineer getting orders of magnitude less equity and performing orders of magnitude better work. Even if I can't change comp, I worry about how the "good guy" must feel & how to retain him if I just continue to "shrug off" the cofounder problem.

It doesn't seem like there is much you can do about it though. If you don't have enough resources to retain the good employees that you need, that's a valid issue to raise with the CEO. He can either get you those resources, or else there could be staffing problems. I don't think anyone joining as an early engineer expects to get more equity than a co-founder though. And you yourself said that people like him. So morale-wise, it's probably fine as long as he finds somewhere else in the company to contribute more.

He's probably a director of the company and not an employee. That tends to give him additional rights (and responsibilities) that you don't have.

One of those is that you usually can't "fire" a director without board approval. Some director agreements and vesting schedules (if drafted properly) also have special acceleration clauses on termination without cause, so even if you could get rid of him, he'll still get his part of the business.

tl;dr: I don't think you can make that decision - it's up to the co founders and the investors. There's nothing you can do, and even if you could, he'd probably leave with his fully vested equity stake. Time to find a new job if you can't deal with that.

Thanks for the advice.

  tl;dr: I don't think you can make that decision

You're right, it's definitely not my call; but I feel that I owe it to my team (and future team) to make the case to the CEO to do something more than just "oh, find him a desk in the basement".

Imagine how I talk to prospective hires: "yes, he's the engineering co-founder -- but we just let him do QA work while the rest of us call the shots". In the valley there's some expectation that the co-founders are, well, in charge, and keeping someone around like that in a limited capacity seems.. unusual.

I totally get what you're saying, it can definitely pull down morale across the engineering team. But it doesn't look like the CEO is interested in fixing the situation?

It can also create tricky situations if, for example, you're a two co-founder team. The CEO might be on good terms with the CTO about the vision of the company, and he needs his continued support/voting power coming with equity stake to push through that vision.

If they each own 30% then he'll be dead in the water without his co founders support if things ever get tough.

I think you are overthinking the situation and looking to justify your feeling that the guy needs to be fired over reassigned. Why tell anyone anything in regards to the prospective hires? If the individual's strength is QA of the product then that is simply what he does. Doesn't matter if he is the founder or not. A good co-founder (or any founder) knows their strengths and weaknesses. More importantly they can own their weaknesses, and know when to bring in others to fill the holes so that the company succeeds. It is no different than a founder giving up the role of CEO to a more experienced and capable person. As the company and product evolves I don't see anything abnormal, or unusual, about a co-founder taking a back seat to other more experienced developers or whatever position it may be.

> Imagine how I talk to prospective hires

"This is Bob, he does the QA."

It might be unusual, but at the same time it seems odd that Bob's position would be an issue to them as compared to their compensation package, duties, etc.

Maybe a better way to rephrase this is: "How would you fire your boss?"

You say the technical founder is well-liked by the other employees. How do your peers feel about you?

Respectfully, you sound like a fresh Alpha Male who's found a new pride, topped the old Alpha, and now you're looking to push him out entirely to cement your dominance. But you're doing so under a passive-aggressive cover, as us tech workers often do.

How long do you expect to be with this company? What do you think about leaving and finding another startup to work with? Maybe somewhere whose work and founders you will respect more? Or even starting your own startup?

  Respectfully, you sound like a fresh Alpha Male
  who's found a new pride, topped the old Alpha,
  and now you're looking to push him out entirely
  to cement your dominance.

I can see that it comes off that way. But the reality is, everyone seems to know this guy isn't hacking it, and I could tell almost immediately -- yet decided to do nothing for over half a year. For exactly that reason: I didn't want to risk the appearance of being an ego/power-maniac. But I'm now debating the wisdom of "just ignore it".

It's things that are borderline embarrassing (real example: not knowing what ssh is) in addition to just poor coding habits (breaking every style rule in the book), no systems instincts, and so on. Plainly, I don't think the CEO knew how to vet this guy.

Honestly, the only way to solve this is to be direct and ask him to leave the company. Bringing that up could go two ways; really good or really bad.

If he leaves then the company will probably have to buy back his equity stake, which will be expensive.

Also, don't forget, he probably has the power to fire you on the spot. These things do happen.

Nonsense. You don't crash a start-up on the say-so of an early hire.

A founder is a founder and barring actual misconduct or behavior that goes directly against the interest of the company should not be treated like he/she was a new hire, especially not by a new hire.

Just curious why do you want him fired over, as the CEO suggests, finding a less critical role for him? Is your reasoning solely based on salary/equity the guy has? There may be other business related issues that you are not aware of that makes firing not the simple option (i.e. as a co-founder there is a possibility he has some form of employment agreement/contract that would give him a significant severance package). On the flip side I would say that just "burying" a poor performer is the wrong choice (the movie Office Space comes to mind).

  Just curious why do you want him fired over,
  as the CEO suggests, finding a less critical
  role for him?

It's a great question, and one reason I'm grateful for the comments (thanks!) is that maybe I shouldn't be looking at it in this way.

  Is your reasoning solely based on salary/equity
  the guy has?

It's one of two: 1, yes, I feel we could be using the same massive comp to reward or hire people who are actually high performing. But 2, equally if not more important, co-founder or not I worry about the cultural weakness we get in to by just "burying" or ignoring a low performer.

> I feel we could be using the same massive comp to reward or hire people who are actually high performing.

That's above your paygrade.

> 2, equally if not more important, co-founder or not I worry about the cultural weakness we get in to by just "burying" or ignoring a low performer.

You didn't hire this person, they hired you.

And he may be a low performer in your view but he obviously did something right because he got the company to the point where they could afford to hire you.

You don't want to fire him/her, and the CEO won't fired him/her, for several reasons. Most important of which is, as a co-founder, they have equity in the company, not stock options. Yes, this equity will vest over time but firing with/without cause can change/accelerate things. At the end of the day, you don't want someone who owns a chunk of your company to be pissed at you. This can have ramifications while fund raising.

You need to meet with the CEO, clearly lay out why the co-founders current role is not a good use of time/money/energy, and work to find a new role.

I used to work in a tech company where the cofounders hired a lot of their family and friends/hobby buddies, beside the real workers. Of course it was the real workers who did the actual work. The family and friends just sat around chatting, surfing all day everyday but they were getting paid and getting stock options. Some of them were in 'technical' roles and a few of them were in 'managerial' positions. If they were to do any real work, they usually screwed up. So nobody would expect anything from them but they stayed anyway. Unreal!

But they were quite friendly! People didn't hate them.

What you are dealing with is quite common in the corporate world. There are incompetent people everywhere at every level. They take a free ride. There is not much you can about it if it's coming from the top.

I will be honest, there was a reason why the cofounder picked this guy maybe he is all over his head but is he malicious , can he do other things better, maybe he needs a little more coaching or a good talk but you don't try to find a solution other than you get irritated by this guy, you might be great but we all bring different skills to the table. It is not your business to get this guy fired really, you don't know if he has a family or needs that money. You come across as envious. sorry :(

I think it's reasonable to expect a cofounder to pull his/her weight in terms of equity. But firing him should be a last resort. Ideally the cofounder should transition to other roles as the company grows and hires people that make him obsolete in whatever role he's currently doing. That's part of the natural evolution of a company and the CEO, cofounder, and you should all understand that. It's not necessarily a failure of the cofounder and shouldn't be looked at as such, unless he's truly just being lazy. If he can't program well he should either improve or find another way he can contribute effectively.

You've done the reasonable thing which is discuss with the CEO. The ball is now in his court. Maybe he is still trying to figure it out, maybe his hands are tied. You can just keep reminding him. Now if you think the CEO is dropping the ball and want to make a power play, you could take the nuclear option and approach the investors/board directly about the issue. This is a pretty dirty and risky move, but it does happen, see Twitter. If I were the CEO I would autofire you if I found out, even if your complaint was valid. Investors/board might not take it kindly either.

It sounds like there are a few separate issues here:

1) You are concerned with other developers compensation.

If you already pay 20%+ over market then your devs aren't going to care what the cofounder makes. If you are paying 20% below market then you will have a problem even if you fire the cofounder and pay 20% less across the board.

If you have been acting as co-founder for the last six months this is your problem and your fault. Fix it.

2) You admit that firing the tech cofounder might harm morale but you think if you do it just right then everything will be ok.

The truth is firing is inherently messy. Firing a well liked and powerful person? Incredibly messy. There is no reliable way to avoid it. You have to believe that the short term (6-12months) pain is worth it.

As a dev if my company pulled such a stunt I'd start Looking for a new job. It shows the company doesn't value past achievements and contributions.

3) You believe you can gain access to the cofounders equity and you can use it to grow your team.

In truth he will almost certainly keep most of his equity, or sell it back to the company.

Firings are messy, but trying to get rid of a co-founder is akin to playing Russian roulette with three bullets instead of one, even money the company will not survive that.

You mention that he has taken to the mentor/mentee relationship, and have said elsewhere that he lacks skills or knowledge of things like SSH.

Are they actually learning and making progress? Or are they unwilling to learn and actually holding you back? If they are learning and developing, why can't you treat them as a very junior developer, help them develop their skills, and eventually they will become a useful asset to your team. You can maybe even sit them down and talk this through with them, I'm sure they have probably realised that their skills could do with improvement. It would likely turn out much better than going behind their back and trying to persuade the other co-founders to fire them.

They must have skills of some kind if they got the product to a point where they could raise money and hire others in the first place?

As for the equity issue, even if they do get fired, that doesn't mean their equity is up for grabs to award to new engineers. So it probably won't solve your issue their.

  If they are learning and developing, why can't you
  treat them as a very junior developer, help them
  develop their skills, and eventually they will
  become a useful asset to your team.

This has been my attitude so far, and my original title (before being edited) had "[How]" in brackets: I'm not at all sure what to do. But the alternative strategy, the optimistic, mentorship one you outline, hasn't been working.

  They must have skills of some kind if they got the
  product to a point where they could raise money
  and hire others in the first place?

It's absolutely true, and I would never advocate anything but generous treatment of the employee. But not meeting today's expectations (not just mine, the whole team's) also matters.

  As for the equity issue, even if they do get fired,
  that doesn't mean their equity is up for grabs to
  award to new engineers. So it probably won't solve
  your issue their.

Very true, and as others have stated legal matters around termination can make this very complicated.

I bring it up more to worry about simmering resentment from e.g. peers. I'm happy with my compensation, but I worry what an impression of "early, ineffective dead weight" can have on newer recruits. It's something I've seen earlier in my career.

While its usually crapped on, having good people in QA is more important than dev if you're doing actual QA.

If this guy isn't detail oriented enough and has broad knowledge of things for dev he's not going to do you any favors in QA.

I agree, "punt to QA" is a cop-out I resist and detest during hiring.

If he can't contribute then he should leave. But he founded the damn company so he should walk away with a nice chunk of equity and a generous severance. The company wouldn't exist without the founders.

It sounds like your best way forward is the route of a less critical role for this cofounder. At least in the short-term.

Longer-term, I would think the other cofounder(s) would at least be considering the "removal" (buyout, whatever) of the this cofounder. No one wants "dead weight" eating value of a company they aren't contributing to. It will only cost them more later.

Or, if the other cofounder(s) don't seem to care, maybe that's a sign you should move on yourself. Maybe you should bring up the subject of "dead weight" with the CEO to get a sense of the situation?

I think that the CEO has given you marching orders. Not much else you can do beyond that. Put the cofounder in a non-critical role or project and do the best you can with what remains after that.

This sounds like a training problem. Is it possible & cost effective to get him better training?

"I think if I pressed the issue I could get him fired"

This will back-fire. You aren't in a position of power. You are only an engineer.

A friend of mine tried this and he, himself was fired. If you don't like the situation, you should probably quit.

you should quit, and start your own company.