The Tale of the Lynx
[Case Analysis] The Tale of the Lynx
1. What were the most critical choices faced by James Milmo early in the founding of Lynx? Do you agree with his decisions?
The most important issue was equity stake. Milmo insisted that Curtis should work for 2 years before being fully vested whereas Milmo himself would be fully vested immediately. Furthermore, Milmo considered Pascal as a critical piece of Lynx and argued that the three founders should be equal partners in Lynx and therefore should each receive a third of its equity. Pascal could participate in the Lynx as a co-founder with Curtis’ consent. Finally, Pascal received only 25% of the company equity, and Milmo and Curtis each received 37.5% of the equity, with Milmo’s vesting immediately and the others vesting over two years.
At first glance, Milmo’s decision would be reasonable and pertinent. However, I think he should not have insisted the right to immediately vest. Even though he got the right, it was not likely for him to leave Lynx before the 2 year vesting period. His assertion is likely only to provide distrust to his partners and potential investors. In case of Pascal’s stake, even though the final agreement might be fair, Milmo was impetuous. He should have discussed the issue with his partner, Curtis, in advance before he made an agreement with Pascal. He stepped off on the wrong foot, which became another cause for the constant disharmony and mistrust between Curtis and Pascal. As we know, the absence of trust amongst team members is the first and critical dysfunction.
2. Has the founding team done a good job of structuring itself and building the Lynx organization?
Three co-founders established Lynx with the triumvirate structure. Milmo was President and Chairman, Curtis was CEO, and Pascal was CTO. Milmo and Pascal were appropriate for their positions, while Curtis, who had years of sales experience for VC-backed companies, was suitable for marketing or raising funds rather than CEO.
1. What were the most critical choices faced by James Milmo early in the founding of Lynx? Do you agree with his decisions?
The most important issue was equity stake. Milmo insisted that Curtis should work for 2 years before being fully vested whereas Milmo himself would be fully vested immediately. Furthermore, Milmo considered Pascal as a critical piece of Lynx and argued that the three founders should be equal partners in Lynx and therefore should each receive a third of its equity. Pascal could participate in the Lynx as a co-founder with Curtis’ consent. Finally, Pascal received only 25% of the company equity, and Milmo and Curtis each received 37.5% of the equity, with Milmo’s vesting immediately and the others vesting over two years.
At first glance, Milmo’s decision would be reasonable and pertinent. However, I think he should not have insisted the right to immediately vest. Even though he got the right, it was not likely for him to leave Lynx before the 2 year vesting period. His assertion is likely only to provide distrust to his partners and potential investors. In case of Pascal’s stake, even though the final agreement might be fair, Milmo was impetuous. He should have discussed the issue with his partner, Curtis, in advance before he made an agreement with Pascal. He stepped off on the wrong foot, which became another cause for the constant disharmony and mistrust between Curtis and Pascal. As we know, the absence of trust amongst team members is the first and critical dysfunction.
2. Has the founding team done a good job of structuring itself and building the Lynx organization?
Three co-founders established Lynx with the triumvirate structure. Milmo was President and Chairman, Curtis was CEO, and Pascal was CTO. Milmo and Pascal were appropriate for their positions, while Curtis, who had years of sales experience for VC-backed companies, was suitable for marketing or raising funds rather than CEO.