Ask HN: Dealing with Underperforming Co-Founder

[rockstuckhrdplc]

I'm a co-founder at a young (1-2 years old) startup. We established an equal equity structure to indicate each co-founder would contribute equally to the company's growth. However, it has become apparent that this is not the case.

My co-founder (PC) is not technical. Our startup makes software and hardware, and PC does not have the knowledge to be involved in either. Over time, many non-technical tasks have fallen into my lap because PC has consistently missed deadlines and meetings, delivered sub-par work product (e.g. writing riddled with spelling and grammatical mistakes, misrepresentation of our product to potential investors, spreadsheets with completely incorrect calculations), and hasn't taken the initiative to learn on the job like me or my other co-founder (OC).

OC and I have had many conversations with PC about this, and we've been met with an acknowledgment and a promise to do better, but things rapidly devolve again. I've completely lost trust in PC, and ordinarily I feel this would not have been tolerated at other companies.

Problem is: OC and I are pretty much operating at 100%, and PC does do work. It's usually not great, and the output per time/money spent is low, but it's work. OC and I aren't certain we have the bandwidth to pick up PC's work; if we broach the topic of equity redistribution, we're afraid PC will demand equal equity or they leave the company, effectively taking the company hostage. We're also entering a funding round and we're scared to set off alarms.

After reading through HN posts, I have to say now doesn't seem like the time to act on equity redistribution or firing. But when IS the time? PC isn't pulling their weight, they're a drain on company resources, they've been given so many chances without improvement, but we do need somebody to manage a bit of work OC and I may not be able to handle ourselves.

Do we just have to let PC freeload on OC's and my work? Do we wait until the company can feasibly replace PC?

[supertomcom]

Deal with it now. VCs: 1. Can sniff out drama 2. Want founders happy and productive, not in-fighting among the team

But, I'd also ask if you're being fair. IMO, technical people aren't the best at assessing non-technical people (I'm a technical person saying this). The spreadsheets might be wrong, but is PC landing all the deals and actually reason why investors are lined up to begin with? In other words, is PC any unique value, that can't be easily replaced (a "dealmaker" can't be replaced easily)?

Only you can answer that. If the answer is no, I vote to address this now. If they really are adding value (in the way that I described), then you might have to bring in help with the things they are not good at to supplement.

[rockstuckhrdplc]

Thanks for offering your thoughts. What you're saying about VCs makes sense.

I agree that it can be difficult as a technical person to assess non-technical people/activities, and I've tried to be understanding of our differences. Our team has frequent meetings, and PC has explained they have been lining up investor conversations through references from our company connections (corporate counsel, previous accelerator connections, etc.), but I've gotten the feeling PC hasn't really been chasing the money with enough intensity. For example, PC spent 3 days the other week (~20 hours reported) "preparing for an investor pitch," which went disastrously - lots of stumbling across words, struggling to explain our product, competitors, and IP strategy.

I suppose the challenge is finding someone more competent who would be willing to do the job with minimal pay, both in terms of the availability of such people and the ability of me and OC to dedicate time to such an effort. Thanks again for your answer. I'll have to discuss with OC what we can afford to do at the moment.

[ekulianova]

In my opinion, the founders are those who want to do the job the most, those who have the biggest motivation. "PC has consistently missed deadlines and meetings" - this doesn't sound like PC is motivated to do their job, so I think it's better not to continue working with PC

[rockstuckhrdplc]

That philosophy makes sense to me. I suppose we just need to ensure we have a suitable replacement to handle the duties PC should be taking care of before we stop working with PC?