Loading...
Answers
MenuI need to fire an engineer at my startup for poor performance but he goes on holidays from Saturday. Should I do it now or wait until he gets back?
He's a great guy but isn't at the senior engineering level he was hired for. Other engineers have to rewrite his code, he takes 5x as long to get things done and it's just hard on all of us so I need to let him go, but he's off this weekend for a week going away for a wedding.
Is it better to "pull the bandaid" and get it done before he goes or wait until he comes back? He's in an at-will state so all legal/HR issues have been covered.
Answers
Please resist the urge to pull the band-aid. I'm not a fan of keeping a poor performer, but unless this person is a behavioral or "for cause" termination, he deserves some professionalism here. 30-day Performance Plan, make the goals aggressive and stick to it - he can consider that his head start to either buck up or start searching.
Remember, your other employees watch how you treat their former colleagues. A quick termination before a holiday is prickish, an aggressive performance plan is taking care of business.
You have the power to make or break this persons holiday - maybe the last one he will get for a while.
What if the roles where reversed? What would you want?
It's only one week...
Performance issues need to be addressed as soon as they are identified. I would not wait. They also need to be carefully documented.
I would have all supporting documentation in hand before you have this discussion.
In my experience, if you are fair with people, you should be able to outline problems as soon as they are identified. A new hire once asked me if we have reviews every 6 or 12 months. My response "we have reviews every 6 hours." But that opportunity does not exist here any more.
If you are worried about network access and security, then maybe take the time to ensure access is buttoned up before pulling the band-aid.
You are only wasting your teams time by prolonging this issue - you've made your decision and taken the appropriate steps- get it over with so everyone can move on
Time is essence in any such decisions. Early discussion to help him to transition is advisable. Such decisions are made before weekend so that your and his week starts fresh. Make sure that the documentation of non-productive efforts are in place.
At Early startup stage its important to make the performance feedback instant and part of the culture. So that it helps people to make decisions including you who are running the business risk.
Assuming you have all of the documentation for the performance issues you've outlined, it is better to make the hard decision to terminate now rather than waiting for him to return. If you have the ability, you might offer to connect him with an outplacement firm to ease his transition. If you don't have documentation of the performance issues, however, you run the risk of increasing your company's liability exposure. If that is the case, I would suggest placing him on some sort of formal performance improvement plan upon his return, documenting specifically the areas where you need to see improvement and a reasonable timeframe (90 days) within which you need to see the improvement, and establish some regular check-ins. Happy to discuss further if that would be helpful.
Do it now. I had to fire someone two days before Christmas and while it is very difficult it has to be done. Treat the person with dignity and respect, focus on the facts and if at all possible they have vacation or something coming that will ease the burden.
I have to disagree with most of the others.
Remove this guy Immediately.
There is ALWAYS a "holiday, sickness, death, marriage, typoon or some other excuse.
Your team is everything, your production and quality will all come down to your weakest link.
Also i assure if you can already see that this engineer takes 5 times longer, then you are paying him 5 times more then you need to. This guy is bleeding you dry.
This in not the 80's or 90's - people move on and change jobs every few months. Most jobs are contract based anyway. Dont get suckered in. I might sound cold, but this is experience, i have given so many people the benefit of the doubt but the trut ish some people have a bad work attitude, and those people have no passion to work towards your goals.
Related Questions
-
What is the best way to write a cover letter to an early-stage startup?
Better than a cover letter is to actually proactively DO something to help them. It'll show them not only that you've researched them, but you're passionate about the startup and worth bringing on. A man got a job at Square early on for just making them a marketing video on his own (back before they had one). Since you're a web designer, design a stellar 1-pager that's targeting their message to a particular niche. Something they could use on social media or something. If they're like most startups, they're not interested in reading cover letters. They're interested in passionate individuals who can add value to the organization.AS
-
Business partner I want to bring on will invest more money than me, but will be less involved in operations, how do I split the company?
Cash money should be treated separately than sweat equity. There are practical reasons for this namely that sweat equity should always be granted in conjunction with a vesting agreement (standard in tech is 4 year but in other sectors, 3 is often the standard) but that cash money should not be subjected to vesting. Typically, if you're at the idea stage, the valuation of the actual cash going in (again for software) is anywhere between $300,000 and $1m (pre-money). If you're operating in any other type of industry, valuations would be much lower at the earliest stage. The best way to calculate sweat equity (in my experience) is to use this calculator as a guide: http://foundrs.com/. If you message me privately (via Clarity) with some more info on what the business is, I can tell you whether I would be helpful to you in a call.TW
-
What is a better title for a startup head....Founder or CEO? Are there any pros/cons to certain titles?
The previous answers given here are great, but I've copied a trick from legendary investor Monish Pabrai that I've used in previous startups that seems to work wonders -- especially if your company does direct B2B sales. Many Founders/ CEOs are hung up on having the Founder/ CEO/ President title. As others have mentioned, those titles have become somewhat devalued in today's world -- especially if you are in a sales meeting with a large organization. Many purchasing agents at large organizations are bombarded by Founders/ CEOs/ Presidents visiting them all day. This conveys the image that a) your company is relatively small (the CEO of GM never personally sells you a car) and b) you are probably the most knowledgeable person in the organization about your product, but once you land the account the client company will mostly be dealing with newly hired second level staff. Monish recommends that Founder/ CEOs hand out a business card that has the title "Head of Sales" or "VP of Sales". By working in the Head of Sales role, and by your ability to speak knowledgeably about the product, you will convey the message that a) every person in the organization is very knowledgeable about the ins and outs of the product (even the sales guys) and b) you will personally be available to answer the client's questions over the long run. I've used this effectively many times myself.VR
-
How much equity should I ask as a C-level executive in a new startup ?
As you may suspect, there really isn't a hard and fast answer. You can review averages to see that a CEO typically becomes a major shareholder in a startup, but your role and renumeration will be based on the perceived value you bring to the organization. You value someone's contribution through equity when you think that they will be able to add long-term benefits, you would prefer that they don't move company part way through the process, and to keep them from being enticed by a better salary (a reason for equity tied to a vesting arrangement). Another reason is when the company doesn't have salary money available but the potential is very strong. In this situation you should be especially diligent in your analysis because you will realize that even the best laid plans sometimes fall completely short. So to get the best mix, you have to be very real about the company's long-term growth potential, your role in achieving it, and the current liquidity necessary to run the operations. It should also be realized that equity needs to be distributed. You cannot distribute 110% and having your cap table recalculated such that your 5% turns into 1% in order to make room for the newly hired head of technology is rather demotivating for the team. Equity should be used to entice a valuable person to join, stay, and contribute. It should not be used in leu of salary that allows an employee to pay their bills. So, like a lot of questions, the answer is really, it depends. Analyzing the true picture of your long-term potential will allow you to more easily determine the correct mix.DH
-
For every success story in Silicon Valley, how many are there that fail?
It all depends on what one decides to be a definition of a "success story." For some entrepreneurs, it might be getting acqui-hired, for some -- a $10M exit, for some -- a $200M exit, and for others -- an IPO. Based on the numbers I have anecdotally heard in conversations over the last decade or so, VCs fund about 1 in 350 ventures they see, and of all of these funded ventures, only about 1 in 10 become really successful (i.e. have a big exit or a successful IPO.) So you are looking at a 1 in 3500 chance of eventual venture success among all of the companies that try to get VC funding. (To put this number in perspective, US VCs invest in about 3000-3500 companies every year.) In addition, there might be a few others (say, maybe another 1-2 in every 10 companies that get VC investments) that get "decent" exits along the way, and hence could be categorized as somewhat successful depending on, again, how one chooses to define what qualifies as a "success story." Finally, there might also be companies that may never need or get around to seeking VC funding. One can, of course, find holes in the simplifying assumptions I have made here, but it doesn't really matter if that number instead is 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10000. The basic point being made here is just that the odds are heavily stacked against new ventures being successful. But that's also one of the distinguishing characteristics of entrepreneurs -- to go ahead and try to bring their idea to life despite the heavy odds. Sources of some of the numbers: http://www.nvca.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ven... https://www.pwcmoneytree.com/MTP... http://paulgraham.com/future.html Here are others' calculations of the odds that lead to a similar conclusion: 1.Dear Entrepreneurs: Here's How Bad Your Odds Of Success Are http://www.businessinsider.com/startup-odds-of-success-2013-5 2.Why 99.997% Of Entrepreneurs May Want To Postpone Or Avoid VC -- Even If You Can Get It http://www.forbes.com/sites/dileeprao/2013/07/29/why-99-997-of-entrepreneurs-may-want-to-postpone-or-avoid-vc-even-if-you-can-get-it/MB
the startups.com platform
Copyright © 2025 Startups.com. All rights reserved.