Evaluating Founder Team Dynamics

---
name: evaluating-founder-team-dynamics
language: en
description: Assesses founding team composition, complementarity, equity split rationale, and execution capability. Use when evaluating founding teams, assessing management risk, or conducting reference checks.
tags:
  - analysis
  - venture-capital
  - risk
metadata:
  author: casemark
  practice_areas:
    - Venture Capital
    - Seed/Series Investing
    - Startup Ecosystems
  document_types:
    - Evaluation Report
  skill_modes:
    - Analysis
    - Assessment
---
# Evaluating Founder Team Dynamics

## When To Use

- Pre-investment diligence on seed or Series A founding teams
- Assessing management risk for an existing portfolio company considering follow-on
- Reference-check synthesis when consolidating back-channel and formal references
- Co-investor alignment discussions where team risk is a contested factor
- Post-mortem analysis when a portfolio company experiences founder conflict or departure

## Inputs To Gather

- **Founder profiles**: LinkedIn/CV for each founder — employment history, education, prior startups, exits or failures
- **Equity cap table**: Current split among founders, vesting schedules, cliff status, acceleration provisions
- **Operating history**: How long founders have worked together, prior co-founding or co-employment
- **Role definitions**: Who owns product, engineering, GTM, finance — and whether any critical function is uncovered
- **Reference data**: Back-channel references, formal references, Glassdoor/team sentiment signals
- **Founder interviews or pitch recordings**: Direct observations of communication style and decision-making
- **Conflict resolution history**: Any disclosed disagreements, pivots, or co-founder separations in past ventures

## Workflow

1. **Map the team composition**
   - List each founder with title, functional domain, and years of relevant experience
   - Identify skill overlaps and gaps — flag any critical function (engineering, sales, finance, ops) with no clear owner
   - Note whether the team has a first-time founder majority or repeat founders

2. **Assess complementarity and coverage**
   - Score functional coverage: does the team span product, tech, and commercial functions?
   - Evaluate domain expertise relative to the target market — direct industry experience vs. adjacent transferability
   - Flag "two-of-the-same" risk (e.g., two technical co-founders with no commercial leader)

3. **Analyze equity split rationale**
   - Document the allocation among founders and the stated reasoning
   - Check for red flags: equal splits with unequal contributions, no vesting, single-trigger acceleration, or missing cliff provisions
   - Compare against stage norms — at pre-seed/seed, a roughly proportional split with standard 4-year/1-year-cliff vesting is expected [VERIFY against current market norms]

4. **Evaluate working relationship and decision-making**
   - Assess how long founders have known each other and collaborated professionally
   - Identify the decision-making model: consensus, CEO-final-call, domain-based authority
   - Look for evidence of navigating disagreement — pivots, strategy changes, or difficult personnel decisions made together
   - Flag teams with no prior working history and no clear governance structure

5. **Synthesize reference check signals**
   - Consolidate formal and back-channel references per founder
   - Weight references by relevance (direct reports, co-founders, investors who passed)
   - Note any patterns: consistent praise in one area, recurring concerns in another
   - Flag any reference refusals or notable omissions

6. **Score execution capability**
   - Rate velocity indicators: speed from idea to MVP, fundraising timeline, early customer traction
   - Evaluate resilience signals: how the team responded to setbacks, rejections, or pivots
   - Assess recruiting ability — has the team attracted strong early hires?

7. **Compile the evaluation report**
   - Summarize strengths, risks, and open questions in a structured format
   - Assign risk ratings (Low / Medium / High) to: complementarity, equity structure, working relationship, execution track record
   - Provide explicit investment recommendation implications (proceed, proceed with mitigation, pass)

## Output

The deliverable is a **Founder Team Evaluation Report** containing:

- **Team overview table**: Founder name, role, background summary, years together
- **Complementarity matrix**: Functions covered vs. gaps, with severity rating
- **Equity structure assessment**: Split, vesting terms, red flags identified
- **Relationship and governance summary**: Decision-making model, conflict history, reference highlights
- **Execution scorecard**: Velocity, resilience, recruiting — each rated Low/Medium/High
- **Risk summary**: Top 3 team-related risks with proposed mitigants or diligence follow-ups
- **Recommendation**: Proceed / Proceed with conditions / Pass, with rationale

## Quality Checks

- Every factual claim about a founder's background is traceable to a specific source (CV, reference, interview) — mark unverified claims with [VERIFY]
- Equity analysis accounts for all founder shares, option pool, and any advisor grants already issued
- Red flags are stated plainly, not buried in hedging language — investors need direct risk signals
- Complementarity gaps distinguish between "nice to have" and "critical hire needed before next milestone"
- Reference synthesis does not over-index on a single data point; require corroboration for negative signals
- Report explicitly notes what diligence remains incomplete (e.g., missing references, pending background checks)