I am founding a startup. I’ve recruited three people.
Person #1 is an experienced front-end developer. He’s been in startups before (not successful), and he’s very creative.
Person #2 is an ex-consultant. She was asked to join because she seems like a smart person. Her role in undefined.
Person #3 has no work experience but has studied marketing and data science. It’s assumed for the time being that he will focus on marketing/growth hacking once the MVP is up and running.
We will be going with a dynamic equity split (see Mike Moyer’s Slicing Pie).
The situation: Person #2 and person #3 have yet to be of value. The bulk of the work so far has been done by person #1 and myself (only approx. 100 hours so far).
Why is this the case? I think it’s largely because person #2’s role is undefined… the value she brings is unclear. Person #3, on the other hand, has no excuse.
My intuition is that I made a mistake in recruiting both. Mind you, they are both excited to be on the project, but I have a strong feeling that they lack a) the skills to be useful, and b) the soft skills needed to succeed in a startup.
As an aside, I think it has also become clear that they are on board for the “startup experience”. This product doesn’t necessarily “scratch an itch” of theirs. They see and believe in the long-term vision, but the problem space isn’t particularly applicable to them at the moment.
That being said, I can be a very hard judge of character. So I am going to give them a fair shot. Under the “Slicing Pie” equity model, people must track their hours. I think this will be a good way of keeping tabs on how well they do.
If performance is sub-par, I will ask them to leave.
My question to you: Would you remove them from the team before letting the numbers speak for their performance? Or would you have them essentially invest more time and effort before acting on your intuition?
submitted by /u/thisismyrealname2
[link] [comments]
May 01, 2017 at 05:04PM
from /u/thisismyrealname2
No comments:
Post a Comment