Many startups will encounter the Freerider problem during their evolution at one point or the other. I have encountered it myself in several companies; it is more common than people realize. It is also very rare to hear anybody talk extensively about these kinds of problems and people seem reluctant to elaborate on how they have solved such issues.
In brief a "Freerider" or "Free rider" is somebody who doesn't quite pull their weight in startup and they are more of a problem than a solution in the path of the startups development.
This kind of problem can arise from any number of circumstances, including:
1. Multiple founders typically with equal (or near-equal) share, some (or one) of which start slacking and underperforming,
2. Co-founder that founds a company with you, but then leaves or is somehow occupied with other tasks not really contributing at all, but still getting the benefits of your hard work.
3. One cause can also be hard-to-verify-n-deal-with personal problems, such as drugs or alcohol abuse and underperformance as a result of that. If this keeps on going long enough you might end up with a Freerider owner that's also on drugs.. not a very happy place to be for a startup.
Founding and developing startups isn't always rosy and groovy, and since people are just people they will have their serious shortcomings occasionally. You could also argue that the kind of personalities that establish startups are far from "risk free" in terms of unexpected bumps in their lives, and are certainly not immune to overdoing the classic "sex, drugs and rock'n'roll" routine up to a point where it starts to hurt the business. How many dot-com "millionaires" you saw repeating this same pattern in the crazy old days? I lost count, and the joke wasn't as funny as it used to be pretty fast.
Freeriders tend to radiate destructive energy and negative vibes in a startup environment. People who actually work their asses off to get the company flying will (sometimes very strongly) think that it is absolutely unfair and unethical for someone else to be a negative influence to the success effort and still reap a big share of the benefits. You could argue the they are wrong: owners are just owners and would an executive in a public corporation feel bad about working his ass off for a pension fund that's the largest owner of his corp? Probably not. But people are emotional up to the point where it becomes irrational and if there's one thing they feel strongly about its the Freeriding and seeing that every day up close. Quite simply Freeriders eat away motivation from the people who perform the most valuable work in your startup: they are usually the first to feel demotivated. You can compensate this with paying them higher salary or coming up with any tricks you can think of: but none of it really solves the problem until the Freerider is gone one way or the other.
Getting a startup to succeed is hard work and everybody needs to pull their weight nearly 100% of the time. If you have 10 people working for you and 1 of them is a Freerider; then 10% of your entire workforce is slacking and causing the others to be demotivated -> startups cannot handle this for very long and the situations are pretty destructive and unbearable. Also any financier or VC investing in your company will almost certainly find out about your "little personnel problem" there (during the DD phase), if nothing is done about it.
Before taking any definite actions towards a Freerider you should first let him/her know about the problem and allow him the chance of fixing it. There are cases when people just go through a rough personal period in their lives and can recover after a while to rejoin the team in the competent and contributing side. If this fails or isn't possible due to the circumstances present, then it is time for action.
If you end up with a permanent Freerider amongst you, what to do?
A) the situation needs to be resolved asap. The sooner the better. Never wait it out, ever. It's like drinking poison and then waiting that it will probably go away, it won't.
B) In many cases you need to get rid of him/her no matter what. Nothing else will help as much as seeing the Freerider leave for good.
C) buying a freerider out is the most common thing to do: get an investor to buy him out. Get a new partner to buy his share and replace him. Buy his share yourself. Be creative. If the situation is bad enough this should not be that much about price and valuation: the company with a severe Freerider probelm can soon be a company worth zero Icelandic Crowns, and any implied valuation for example is better than zero, right?
D) you need to tell your team that you consider this to be an important problem to solve, and will work actively in solving it. You can even propose that you pile up the money together and buy the Freerider's share jointly.
E) If the Freerider owns less than 10% there might be couple of legal-financial ways to get rid of him: organizing a scheme where somebody temporarily owns more than 90% of the company and then forcibly buying the Freeriders share, after which you can reorganize your ownership etc. This is quite rare and often there's no chance of doing this; as the most typical Freerider, unfortunately, is a co-founder.
How have I solved Freerider problems in the past?
I have fired Freeriders from the company, even founders. Then later tried or succeeded in buying their shares. I have sent people home to do nothing for a few months to recover and give them a chance to rethink their priorities and possibly return to work as a contributing team member (if they are really competent, that's better than loosing them forever). I have also seen cases where somebody isn't pulling their weight fully, and that person gets bought out rather quick, solving the issue and making him/her a normal employee of the startup.
Prevention is far better than reacting to an acute problem that has already caused damage. How to prevent a Freerider problem? Here's a few tips:
i. Talk about this specific problem amongst all owners. Make sure everybody understand what it takes to make a startup successful. Make sure that everybody knows crystal clear that their contribution is expected and vital - there's no such option as suddenly starting to slack or not to perform.
ii. As soon as you see the first signs of this problem; react right away. Talk to people, call a meeting, go talk to the person who looks like he/she might become a Freerider soon. Fix performance issues, re-shuffle responsibilities and roles if you have to. Get the team working, eyes on the ball and motivation high. Don't leave them alone with their problems or "behind" with a mountain of work to climb.
iii. Consider having a vesting schedule even for the founders stock. Some US VCs use this mechanism and it quite effectively solves potential Freeraider problems. There's a good post about that here in the Lightspeed Venture Partners blog.
iv. Consider having a good leaver/bad leaver clause in your SHA (ShareHolder's Agreement) that way you can prevent the "our co-founder just left, and still owns 35% of the company" -problems from happening.
I would love to see more talk about this issue. Usually the only moment where you encounter this topic is when you talk about the new SHA with a VC who is about to invest into your venture. There exists just about nil discussion about the topic, and I'm sure many startup founders haven't even encountered it (yet). I hope to start a discussion by this blog entry.
Hi. My name is Taneli Tikka. This is where I preach what I practice. I'm a
serial entrepreneur and a startup activist of sorts. People usually know me
from my past and present consumer Internet service projects: IRC-Galleria,
Dopplr, Muxlim, StarDoll, RunToShop, Vakuutuskone.com, and a bunch of other stuff. My
"proper" bio is behind this link. Glad to see you here, thanks for browsing
around.
Comments
Interresting topic. Thanks
Thu, 2008-10-09 18:59 — Heikki (not verified)Interresting topic. Thanks for writing!
Good one!
Thu, 2008-10-09 19:56 — Anonymous (not verified)Sorry for being an anonymous coward, but having fired 1 owner and bought out 3 (three different companies), I do indeed feel this is a bit of a tabu to discuss. I'd like to open the discussion a bit to also concern employee freeriders (or maybe more appropriately underperformers), because their role can be as significant as owners poor performance.
I would say that dealing out with owners have been easier, because at least the case is very clear if there are not too many of the owners. Either it works, or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, something has to give. However with employees, the protection in Finland is strong and you can't just fire people at will, even if they don't perform too well. And at a stage where company is just taking off or growing rapidly, an effect of underperformers can be catastrophic. What's your estimate, how often have you been able to solve underperformance problem without parting ways?
Thanks for the tips!
Anonymous answers
Thu, 2008-10-09 21:12 – taneliGood, althou anonymous, insight to the same Tabu. Employee job protection in indeed pretty strong, with pretty extreme rules like the ones concerning fixed time employment contracts and trying to get rid of somebody who tries to do his job every day but just underperforms every day. So it's a tricky situation. Yet still maybe in about 80% of the cases you can find a way towards clear and positive waters with the employee, and in 20% of the cases nothing you try seems to work and you will have to do some unfortunate clipping. People usually lack either: 1) competence, 2) motivation. both can be worked on. Only if you have a seemingly competent, seemingly motivated person and yet still nothing works, then that's pretty serious. Perhaps I should blog a separate entry about this some day... Its a bit of an complex issue.
Really good blog, thanks yet again
Fri, 2008-10-10 11:32 — Teemu (not verified)Hello Taneli,
I just wanted to congratulate you about your new blog. This gives us (well at least me), eager young wannabe-future-leaders many really good insights about overall business startups and finance we prolly couldn't get from anywhere else.
I for one am almost ecstatic about this.
Thank you.
Similar thoughts
Sat, 2008-10-11 16:21 — Janne Savukoski (not verified)Thanks for the post, nicely elaborated. :)
We've also been thinking this quite a bit lately as the traditional ways of modeling and actualizing business ownerships isn't too compatible with the fast-paced web startup efforts. Static shareholding etc. may be good when talking about enterprises where people will bind themselves for decades, but not for things that only need some half a year worth of effort from one type of contributor (conceptualizers, hackers, marketers).
And, as doers, we like meritocracy quite a lot. We've had lot of great ideas, which have then been implemented by someone else or not at all, and became frustrated with the whole idea thing so nowdays we've also come to the conclusion that ideas are worthless and only results matter.
In what we've been thinking, ownership and income should be distributed according to a collectively evaluated effort accumulation. (“Not all work is equal.”) Let people acclaim their own effort and let the rest of contributors then rank the effort, starting from nil. And the evaluation mustn't be done in a democratic fashion either, of course; one shouldn't get any decisive power or ownership just by merely “being”. (The old question: would pyramids have been built under democracy? Was it good for the people is another, totally unrelated question. ;)
Basically, the thing is: “Merits or out. (But you get to keep all that we've granted you, only constantly liquidating.)”
The model should be quite well aligned with the kind of high performance, top-notch teams. (As has been proved by open source world.) It shouldn't need much rules or enforcing as it would intrinsically focus on effort and results. Just don't hint any employment regulators about this kind of a model..
We've seen meritocracy maturing in open source projects, and (some) people should start having strong enough conception over meritocratic systems for considering it as a model for managing business cases as well.
Thanks for bringing this up. Something fresh is really needed.
As mentioned, the sooner you
Wed, 2008-11-19 02:01 — Andy Sedgwick (not verified)As mentioned, the sooner you get rid of the freeriders, the better for the majority. Freeriders are also freeloaders, often exploiting and not giving a damn about anyone except themselves
A shade of...
Tue, 2009-11-10 01:09 — da Goat (not verified)I firmly agree and abide by the concept of Meritocracy, however a recent start-up experience has had me thrown. After being approached by a VC, we were questioned about a junior shareholder's (7.5%) salary and necessity during due diligence. The net result, because the term sheet was attractive, was that he retained his equity, but was forced to earn an income elsewhere by the rest of the board - it was made clear at the time that his equity was based on on going obligations, input, and performance indicators being achieved. Due to his circumstance, including a young family to support, he struggled to perform 2 roles - earning his income and meeting his equity obligations. Net result being that both suffered, leaving both family and board members baying for the blood of the Freerider! Understanding that he added value when imersed in the daily grind of a start-up, and that he had not removed himself, we let morality be the decision maker, and underwrote his 7.5% based on KPI based 'good leaver/bad leaver' terms which we pretty much made up along the way - with our attorney and CA.
It all sounds simple enough, but the morally correct decision ended up being the rope he used to hang himself, and he failed to meet KPI's or obligations and was diluted in the first 12 months by a third, leaving him 5% of the company stock. (Note: we agreed at the time we issued the share certificates that 2.5% of his equity was for effort to date). Any insights into how this could have been handled better would be interesting to read.
Post new comment