Help, what should I do when 2 founders have had a falling out?
19 comments
You guys need to seriously lighten up. The kind of thing that is happening here happens everywhere. People are more or less set in their ways and you, Tom and Jerry are no different. Each of you is trying to push the company in a direction that you're most comfortable with and each of you has different limitations and a pretty thick manual of operations attached to yourselves.
Work around each others limitations, reinforce each others strengths. You may want a company without Tom, but do realize you would have gone under long ago if he had not been there and such a situation is likely to recur.
Likewise, Tom may want everything to be nailed down but in the real world that is not always possible. So you catch him there.
All of you contribute essential elements to your partnership, the whole is bigger than the sum of its parts.
You also need to understand that three is the hardest number and that you all need to kick down a notch or two when times are stressful. You deal with your problems when times are good, not while the shit is hitting the fan.
Best of luck!
Work around each others limitations, reinforce each others strengths. You may want a company without Tom, but do realize you would have gone under long ago if he had not been there and such a situation is likely to recur.
Likewise, Tom may want everything to be nailed down but in the real world that is not always possible. So you catch him there.
All of you contribute essential elements to your partnership, the whole is bigger than the sum of its parts.
You also need to understand that three is the hardest number and that you all need to kick down a notch or two when times are stressful. You deal with your problems when times are good, not while the shit is hitting the fan.
Best of luck!
Clearly you need to go back in time and spend some time on your operating agreement, and then take Tom more seriously on his point that you need documents outlining how things are to be done--SO THAT YOU ARE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.
You guys really screwed up by not putting in the effort up front to flesh out all the aspects of your business, and now all then unsaid things about responsibility are biting you in the ass. Betcha you guys don't really have titles because you think you're too small, am I right? Class newbie mistake--they're necessary because they clearly state what you are responsible for.
Well, I'd chalk this up to a learning experience for next time and then get everyone in a room and hash this all out as a last-ditch attempt to save your company. Otherwise someone will walk out or have a heart attack and your company is dead anyway. (BTW you DID think about this and address it in your operating agreement, right?) Draw up what the org chart SHOULD look like, and then have a realistic conversation about what it will take to get there, and if it is actually possible.
Speaking from experience as a technical founder, you need to put in some late nights and really try to buckle down and offload the grunt work that is killing you. Write up job descriptions and user stories, all of the stuff that makes it possible for someone BESIDES YOU to do the work. You can get developers for $15/hr on oDesk for crying out loud, there is no excuse for killing yourself like you are, it is the fact that it is easier to do it yourself right now. This is a death-vortex you will not escape from unless you make it your #1 priority.
(And yes, this comes from similar experience.)
You guys really screwed up by not putting in the effort up front to flesh out all the aspects of your business, and now all then unsaid things about responsibility are biting you in the ass. Betcha you guys don't really have titles because you think you're too small, am I right? Class newbie mistake--they're necessary because they clearly state what you are responsible for.
Well, I'd chalk this up to a learning experience for next time and then get everyone in a room and hash this all out as a last-ditch attempt to save your company. Otherwise someone will walk out or have a heart attack and your company is dead anyway. (BTW you DID think about this and address it in your operating agreement, right?) Draw up what the org chart SHOULD look like, and then have a realistic conversation about what it will take to get there, and if it is actually possible.
Speaking from experience as a technical founder, you need to put in some late nights and really try to buckle down and offload the grunt work that is killing you. Write up job descriptions and user stories, all of the stuff that makes it possible for someone BESIDES YOU to do the work. You can get developers for $15/hr on oDesk for crying out loud, there is no excuse for killing yourself like you are, it is the fact that it is easier to do it yourself right now. This is a death-vortex you will not escape from unless you make it your #1 priority.
(And yes, this comes from similar experience.)
We haven't written down who will be in charge of what in a document, but we mostly have complimentary roles.
Yes, we initially started off without titles, but gradually we have decided on the following.
Jerry is usually in charge of client interactions (CEO)
Tom is in charge of the financial, meeting the CA, making sure our books are in order. (CFO)
I am in charge making sure the development is going on smoothly. (CTO)
Other than the roles mentioned above all of us have been writing code.
Yes, you are right, we need to put in late nights to get the majority of the work completed, and make it such that we can offload it.
If you don't mind me asking, what was the ending to the situation you were in?
Yes, we initially started off without titles, but gradually we have decided on the following.
Jerry is usually in charge of client interactions (CEO)
Tom is in charge of the financial, meeting the CA, making sure our books are in order. (CFO)
I am in charge making sure the development is going on smoothly. (CTO)
Other than the roles mentioned above all of us have been writing code.
Yes, you are right, we need to put in late nights to get the majority of the work completed, and make it such that we can offload it.
If you don't mind me asking, what was the ending to the situation you were in?
"I explain that they are fresh out of college and need to be trained before we can trust them to handle a project and deliver it successfully."
This is a key statement right here. If you can't trust them to deliver projects relatively quickly you shouldn't have hired them (and probably need to get rid of them). I'm not saying that you should treat them like seasoned pros. But fresh out of college or not, your devs are still adults and you should treat them as such. A startup simply isn't the place for a long, hand-holding training period.
It may sound like I'm being harsh towards your devs, but I'm not. If I'm right (which I may not be), you're the one who's being harsh towards them albeit unintentionally. Most overworked CTOs I've seen are the result of simply not being able to just let go and trust others to make decisions. This is not only bad for you, but bad for the developers who work for you.
This is a key statement right here. If you can't trust them to deliver projects relatively quickly you shouldn't have hired them (and probably need to get rid of them). I'm not saying that you should treat them like seasoned pros. But fresh out of college or not, your devs are still adults and you should treat them as such. A startup simply isn't the place for a long, hand-holding training period.
It may sound like I'm being harsh towards your devs, but I'm not. If I'm right (which I may not be), you're the one who's being harsh towards them albeit unintentionally. Most overworked CTOs I've seen are the result of simply not being able to just let go and trust others to make decisions. This is not only bad for you, but bad for the developers who work for you.
Yeah, it's sounds to me that you are being a bit harsh but at the same time I cannot fault your reasoning.
Especially in a small company, the founders are going to have a few "small pebbles" that can get stuck in the machinery. If you try to ignore/override the grinding noises, you're engine is going to blow up. As painful as it might feel now, I think your best option would be to back off and let Tom do whatever he feels is important (like the website).
The key is: DON'T make him feel like you're ignoring him or don't value his contribution (even if you don't). Just give him some time to cool off and don't pester him.
From your perspective, you might loose a couple of weeks, but at least you won't loose a valuable team member.
Database people can be especially finicky in this way (I would know, I'm a database person :) ). As far as I can tell, he just wants to feel like the company is also striving for the objectives he values. Let him work on those objectives for as long as he wants, but I'm relatively sure it won't be more than two or three weeks. He'll finish whatever is bothering him, and he'll want to get "more involved" again, which is when you start asking him with database help on your other projects.
The key is: DON'T make him feel like you're ignoring him or don't value his contribution (even if you don't). Just give him some time to cool off and don't pester him.
From your perspective, you might loose a couple of weeks, but at least you won't loose a valuable team member.
Database people can be especially finicky in this way (I would know, I'm a database person :) ). As far as I can tell, he just wants to feel like the company is also striving for the objectives he values. Let him work on those objectives for as long as he wants, but I'm relatively sure it won't be more than two or three weeks. He'll finish whatever is bothering him, and he'll want to get "more involved" again, which is when you start asking him with database help on your other projects.
To me Tom sounds like the person with the 'long view', the other two are 'firemen'. That's about as complimentary as it gets and you really need both. Without either they're dead in the water.
If I could upvote this 1000 times I would! These two mentalities seem to cause the most conflicts if you don't address them soon. But if you make it work, wonderful things can start to happen.
Hi
To me, it seems that you guys dont really have any serious issue. Its just that you all have freaked out due to huge amount of work you have been doing.
I hope im right and you'll manage to get along and pass this pressure.
To me, it seems that you guys dont really have any serious issue. Its just that you all have freaked out due to huge amount of work you have been doing.
I hope im right and you'll manage to get along and pass this pressure.
I think that's the best advice here. Under normal circumstances they could probably resolve these problems with little difficulty. It's easy to focus on the symptoms, but that's not the real problem.
The problem is that they're under the influence of an extra high dose of stress. They're not really themselves right now. The best thing they can do is constantly remind themselves that they're in a really stressed out state. If they can get past this and find a way to reduce their stress it's quite likely they'll be able to work together happily again.
The problem is that they're under the influence of an extra high dose of stress. They're not really themselves right now. The best thing they can do is constantly remind themselves that they're in a really stressed out state. If they can get past this and find a way to reduce their stress it's quite likely they'll be able to work together happily again.
What I hear in the story is that Tom is feeling incredibly frustrated at having to not only plan for the company's long-term growth, but that he's repeatedly brought up the fact that you and Jerry's reactive strategies work to help increase everyone's workload. And this particular latest straw, in which Jerry not only agrees to extra work, but then tries to reassign it to Tom, is viewed by Tom as something only a dedicated crazymaker would do.
If I were in your shoes, I would hire a facilitator for the next meeting. An earlier response mentioned being on the same page as being very important and I have to agree. I think having a professional facilitator will help you, Tom and Jerry (wait -- Tom and Jerry like the cat and the mouse?) hear each other.
Good luck.
If I were in your shoes, I would hire a facilitator for the next meeting. An earlier response mentioned being on the same page as being very important and I have to agree. I think having a professional facilitator will help you, Tom and Jerry (wait -- Tom and Jerry like the cat and the mouse?) hear each other.
Good luck.
> we cannot afford really experienced developers ... Tom says that we should use the developers we just hired to complete the projects. - I explain that they are fresh out of college and need to be trained before we can trust them to handle a project and deliver it successfully. - Tom disagrees.
I agree with Tom, let go some and have them code stuff for you, you guys are clearly over-worked. If you can't trust these young developers to develop, then why did you hire them? to decorate the office?
I agree with Tom, let go some and have them code stuff for you, you guys are clearly over-worked. If you can't trust these young developers to develop, then why did you hire them? to decorate the office?
story was long, bud I did read it.
there is a difference between funded company and self-funded company. Tom is better suited as a employee or partner in a funded company.
being a small company you and Jerry accomodate change because you need to survive, also it can be your USP and the reason why clients came to you in the first place.
it is difficult to share work and profit equally when the work comes in varied formats.
on a longer term overworking would exhaust you.
try ways to give incentives your management team and employees, revenue targets, 0 defects, referrals can all be metrics which can be used to judge the incentives. give it a shot for a month and discuss if situation has improved
splitting is very easy but it might affect your growth, focus and profits, undoing may not be possible later
there is a difference between funded company and self-funded company. Tom is better suited as a employee or partner in a funded company.
being a small company you and Jerry accomodate change because you need to survive, also it can be your USP and the reason why clients came to you in the first place.
it is difficult to share work and profit equally when the work comes in varied formats.
on a longer term overworking would exhaust you.
try ways to give incentives your management team and employees, revenue targets, 0 defects, referrals can all be metrics which can be used to judge the incentives. give it a shot for a month and discuss if situation has improved
splitting is very easy but it might affect your growth, focus and profits, undoing may not be possible later
You guys need to stop justifying your points of view to each other and empathize more. Observe:
> Tom mentions (1) that we both have not volunteered to write content for the website. - I respond (1) by saying I am not very good at writing and currently I am swamped with a lot of work. ... Jerry responds (1) by saying that he's swamped too, he's working on three different projects simultaneously,
So, he says "the website ought to be done," and you guys start explaining yourselves and brush him off. This is bad, it makes people upset. Instead, you ought to go - "yeah man, I understand, the website is important and it sucks it hasn't gotten done yet. What would we have to do to do that, while also keeping up with our other commitments?"
It's like customer service - you can't always fix the problem, but if you tell the customer they're wrong/stupid they're going to get pissed no matter what. At least say, "I heard you and understand that's frustrating you." Then ask how you can get it done without the ship sinking. At that point, Tom might even say, "Well, let's just do an hour a week to make sure it doesn't stagnate, but mostly have it on the back burner" or something like that - heck, you might even not do the hour a week at that point, but now he's saved face instead of gotten embarrassed. You guys sound like very logical and intelligent people, but don't underestimate how important it is for people to feel taken care of emotionally and save face.
> and says he’s been working (2) around 12-14hrs and on weekends for the past month. - Jerry accuses (2) Tom of not putting in as much effort as the rest of us are putting in. - Tom responds (2) by asking if we consider the website to be important (as it has not been updated for over a year). - Jerry responds (2) by saying that current projects take a priority,
No good, see? No empathy. Just accusing/defending yourselves. This always leads to bad places and isn't productive.
> and suggests (3) we could consider updating the website when work is less hectic (once we have transitioned the work to the new developers we hired). - Tom responds (3) by saying that he envisioned all us founders to be done with writing code by this point, and expected us to all be managing the developers or the sales/marketing side of things. - I try to explain (3) to Tom that we are still very small, we cannot afford really experienced developers, I can't envision (3) running our startup successfully without all of us coding for at least part of our time every day for at least couple of months more. I explain that we need to focus more (3) on the marketing and sales side of things but we can’t just jump into doing it fulltime right now. - Tom says (3) that we should use the developers we just hired to complete the projects. - I explain (3) that they are fresh out of college and need to be trained before we can trust them to handle a project and deliver it successfully. - Tom disagrees. (3)
Etc, etc, etc. Look, lots of arguing, not much empathizing and cooperating. This leads to bad places. I agree with Jacques that you guys need to lighten up, but also empathize more. Tom thinks the website and plan is important. You've got to say to him, "Tom, I understand you think the website and plan is important, and I agree. At the same time, we need to keep serving our customers. Do you have any ideas?" Listen without judging/disagreeing/explaining. You'll probably come up with something reasonable.
This doesn't seem fatal, no one's stealing or fistfighting or anything too bad. Some low morale during a bad economy and some arguments. Survivable. Just stop arguing, accusing, explaining, explaining, justifying, disagreeing - more empathy. Empathy fixes problems.
> Tom mentions (1) that we both have not volunteered to write content for the website. - I respond (1) by saying I am not very good at writing and currently I am swamped with a lot of work. ... Jerry responds (1) by saying that he's swamped too, he's working on three different projects simultaneously,
So, he says "the website ought to be done," and you guys start explaining yourselves and brush him off. This is bad, it makes people upset. Instead, you ought to go - "yeah man, I understand, the website is important and it sucks it hasn't gotten done yet. What would we have to do to do that, while also keeping up with our other commitments?"
It's like customer service - you can't always fix the problem, but if you tell the customer they're wrong/stupid they're going to get pissed no matter what. At least say, "I heard you and understand that's frustrating you." Then ask how you can get it done without the ship sinking. At that point, Tom might even say, "Well, let's just do an hour a week to make sure it doesn't stagnate, but mostly have it on the back burner" or something like that - heck, you might even not do the hour a week at that point, but now he's saved face instead of gotten embarrassed. You guys sound like very logical and intelligent people, but don't underestimate how important it is for people to feel taken care of emotionally and save face.
> and says he’s been working (2) around 12-14hrs and on weekends for the past month. - Jerry accuses (2) Tom of not putting in as much effort as the rest of us are putting in. - Tom responds (2) by asking if we consider the website to be important (as it has not been updated for over a year). - Jerry responds (2) by saying that current projects take a priority,
No good, see? No empathy. Just accusing/defending yourselves. This always leads to bad places and isn't productive.
> and suggests (3) we could consider updating the website when work is less hectic (once we have transitioned the work to the new developers we hired). - Tom responds (3) by saying that he envisioned all us founders to be done with writing code by this point, and expected us to all be managing the developers or the sales/marketing side of things. - I try to explain (3) to Tom that we are still very small, we cannot afford really experienced developers, I can't envision (3) running our startup successfully without all of us coding for at least part of our time every day for at least couple of months more. I explain that we need to focus more (3) on the marketing and sales side of things but we can’t just jump into doing it fulltime right now. - Tom says (3) that we should use the developers we just hired to complete the projects. - I explain (3) that they are fresh out of college and need to be trained before we can trust them to handle a project and deliver it successfully. - Tom disagrees. (3)
Etc, etc, etc. Look, lots of arguing, not much empathizing and cooperating. This leads to bad places. I agree with Jacques that you guys need to lighten up, but also empathize more. Tom thinks the website and plan is important. You've got to say to him, "Tom, I understand you think the website and plan is important, and I agree. At the same time, we need to keep serving our customers. Do you have any ideas?" Listen without judging/disagreeing/explaining. You'll probably come up with something reasonable.
This doesn't seem fatal, no one's stealing or fistfighting or anything too bad. Some low morale during a bad economy and some arguments. Survivable. Just stop arguing, accusing, explaining, explaining, justifying, disagreeing - more empathy. Empathy fixes problems.
It's clear that'd tom works differently than you two, so if you can, you should offer to buy him out. Or allow him to leave, but owning chunk of the company commensurate with getting it off of thebp ground.
If these seem untenable, then you need to reach an agreement for working style that let's Tom feel coopmfortable. I believe the problem at it's core is trust. Tom wants to be able to plan ahead, and by not letting him do so, he is frustrated. He might be amendable to go with an agile process where you only plan ahead incept cycle, but he can't be expected to change during that cycle.
But you can't take this casually. You need to make an agreement among the three of you how your going to resolve this conflict. It is a legitimate conflict, and the art of management is working out agreements that take business reality into account.
If these seem untenable, then you need to reach an agreement for working style that let's Tom feel coopmfortable. I believe the problem at it's core is trust. Tom wants to be able to plan ahead, and by not letting him do so, he is frustrated. He might be amendable to go with an agile process where you only plan ahead incept cycle, but he can't be expected to change during that cycle.
But you can't take this casually. You need to make an agreement among the three of you how your going to resolve this conflict. It is a legitimate conflict, and the art of management is working out agreements that take business reality into account.
"It's clear that'd tom works differently than you two, so if you can, you should offer to buy him out."
I'm not saying that Tom shouldn't be let go, but he shouldn't be let go because he works differently. The thing that people have difficulty understanding is that these differences are good things. Everyone has blind spots. If you hire a bunch of people who work the same way, you all have the same blind spots and you're setting yourself up for a disaster. If you hire people who do work differently from you, you have fewer blind spots if you are willing to put work into it.
I'm not saying that Tom shouldn't be let go, but he shouldn't be let go because he works differently. The thing that people have difficulty understanding is that these differences are good things. Everyone has blind spots. If you hire a bunch of people who work the same way, you all have the same blind spots and you're setting yourself up for a disaster. If you hire people who do work differently from you, you have fewer blind spots if you are willing to put work into it.
As you mentioned, the core issue is one of the founders doesn't trust the other.
I think it sounds reasonable to plan work in cycles/sprints which cannot be interrupted midway.
I shall try to put this point across, and see if we all can reach an agreement.
I think it sounds reasonable to plan work in cycles/sprints which cannot be interrupted midway.
I shall try to put this point across, and see if we all can reach an agreement.
More than three years back, three of us (all classmates from college) decided to take the plunge and start up. I know one of the founders very well; we did a lot of projects together in college. I was also working with him (in the same company) before we decided to start up. We both worked at a small software development firm. (Let’s call him Jerry) The other co-founder was a very good friend from college and had similar ideas about starting up. He was working for a fairly large software development firm before starting up with us. (Let’s call him Tom)
We decided to put in our own money and initially started out creating our own product, a web based event planning tool. Our initial plan was to create a basic version of the application and depending on the response create a premium (paid) version for event organizers. Unfortunately, at that time, event organizers in India weren't really interested in the idea. We started looking for consulting work and received a few local and overseas projects. This definitely boosted our confidence and our bank balance.
[While working together we noticed that the way me and Jerry worked was different from the way Tom was used to working. Tom wanted a proper document in place which would describe exactly what needed to be done. While me and Jerry didn't have any qualms about having everything in writing before starting on a project. As projects would progress, we would realize that we had missed something and it would require some more effort. This is where we saw things differently, Tom would sometimes flatly refuse to work on the change or be upset because now he would have to work on something that wasn't mentioned earlier on. Me and Jerry would not think much of it and go ahead and get it done. This had caused issues between Jerry and Tom, which eventually led to a discussion in which we tried to make Tom understand that requirements change and we aren't a big software company and following processes which are prevalent in bigger software companies would not be feasible for us]
Over the course of one year we completed couple of more projects. We also managed to sign on a large project which would involve us hiring 3 more developers. The contracts were signed, we finish hiring and had started the initial requirements gathering phase when suddenly the client wanted to put the whole project on hold for a couple of months (this was during the slow down around Q1 '09), the client eventually backed out completely. We were in a very precarious situation as we had hired people and had no projects that were currently running (never put all your eggs in one basket). As this was a recession, getting projects was very hard, and we eventually had to dip into our savings to keep our startup afloat.
After a few very uncertain months we slowly started receiving work. We found a project which would involve us dedicating one person to it continuously (let’s call it the US project). Tom started working as a dedicated resource for this project since he had experience in the technology they were looking for. Simultaneously we started getting couple of small projects which would keep everyone mostly busy.
At this time the project that Tom was working on would make up the significant portion our revenues and is what kept us afloat till things picked up.
Tom (after about 6 months) started training one of our developers (let’s call him Patrick) to work on as the dedicated resource for the project. For quite some time Tom & Patrick would both be working (the knowledge transfer period was quite long) on the US project. Tom still spends at least a couple of hours every day helping Patrick.
Me and Jerry have been working on multiple projects as we have been getting a steady stream of projects and have more than we can currently take up. Most of us have been working at least 12 - 14 hours in a day.
In June this year Jerry and Tom had a heated argument on the direction the company should take. We all had a long discussion on our current situation and future projections and what would be our roles moving forward. We eventually came to the conclusion that Jerry & Tom would start working on sales and marketing while slowly reducing the time they spent writing code, and I would continue handling the development teams. Jerry was already handling most of the client interaction while Tom was mostly handling client interaction for the US project and one other project. We also decided we would hire more people.
--- Current Situation ---
Currently we are a small (8 people) moderately profitable software company.
Tom spends a couple of hours a day on the US project and the other time on another project, he also helps us when we need some database advice (he's the database expert).
Tom had taken up the task to update our website (we haven't updated our website for over a year). He made a list of pages that would need to be updated. He had informed us of the same and had asked us to pick up the pages we wanted to write content for; he would write the content for the rest. As we were really busy completing projects we did not pick any topics and Tom didn't mention the website to us again. Tom was also helping Jerry out on a project and Jerry had already asked him to complete a set of tasks that the client required.
Me, Jerry and Nick are working on about 5 projects, depending on the deadlines and requirements we may work on 3 projects in a day. Jerry is also spending some time in getting our newly hired developers up to speed on the way we work.
A few days back our client during one of our weekly calls mentions that he would like a feature implemented in a different way. Jerry agrees as the newer implementation was more elegant.
Initially Jerry was supposed to complete this phase of the project, but after the requirement change Tom would be the ideal person to implement this (some part of the processing which would happen in the application could be done directly in the database)
After the call Jerry sends an email telling Tom of the requirement change and asking him on how much time it would take him to implement the change given his other commitments.
To which Tom responds he would not be able to make the changes alone and would require Nick to implement the changes.
Jerry responds saying that he and Nick are working on 3 projects together and it would take some time till Nick gets free, and also asks him why he would not be able to implement the changes alone.
Tom responds with an email telling Jerry that he's being unprofessional. Earlier Jerry had mentioned that he would be handling this phase of the project, and now he wants Tom to handle it. Tom accuses Jerry of trying to push tasks down his throat. He also mentions that the last time he worked on implementing something similar was 2 years ago and would require at least 5 days in total to understand their schema and implement the changes alone. He also mentions that other projects were taking up time and he hadn't spent any time writing content for the website and as none of us had volunteered to help, he would have to write all the content on his own. In the end he mentions it would not be possible for him to implement the change and tells Jerry to ask someone else for help.
After which Jerry responds saying that requirements change and he should help out, ending with we all need to have a talk.
Now during the discussion we have - Tom mentions that we both have not volunteered to write content for the website. - I respond by saying I am not very good at writing and currently I am swamped with a lot of work. I apologize for not replying to his email about the website content, and also not communicating to him why I cannot take up anything now. - Jerry responds by saying that he's swamped too, he's working on three different projects simultaneously, and says he’s been working around 12-14hrs and on weekends for the past month. - Jerry accuses Tom of not putting in as much effort as the rest of us are putting in. - Tom responds by asking if we consider the website to be important (as it has not been updated for over a year). - Jerry responds by saying that current projects take a priority, and suggests we could consider updating the website when work is less hectic (once we have transitioned the work to the new developers we hired). - Tom responds by saying that he envisioned all us founders to be done with writing code by this point, and expected us to all be managing the developers or the sales/marketing side of things. - I try to explain to Tom that we are still very small, we cannot afford really experienced developers, I can't envision running our startup successfully without all of us coding for at least part of our time every day for at least couple of months more. I explain that we need to focus more on the marketing and sales side of things but we can’t just jump into doing it fulltime right now. - Tom says that we should use the developers we just hired to complete the projects. - I explain that they are fresh out of college and need to be trained before we can trust them to handle a project and deliver it successfully. - Tom disagrees. He says that Jerry is trying to push tasks down his throat. - Jerry says he can’t work with Tom any longer, and would like to sell his stake.
As of now we have decided to meet on Monday so that everyone has time to think on how we want to take this forward.
The way I see it is either Jerry or Tom would be leaving, I don’t see the startup surviving at this stage without any one of the founders.
Has anyone been in a situation similar to this? I would love some advice.