A startup founder from Bengaluru recently shared on LinkedIn the reasoning behind letting go of a developer within a short span of time, reflecting on the experience as a lesson in decision-making and accountability.
Jeevanth RamamurthyJeevanth Ramamurthy explained that he had dismissed the employee within just a few weeks of hiring, later realizing that the decision could have been taken even earlier. As someone without a technical background, he had been building his venture independently and brought in a developer with around two years of experience to accelerate product development. The salary was being paid directly from his own funds, making efficiency and output even more critical.
In the initial phase, he relied on the developer’s explanation that the existing code structure was disorganized and slowing down progress. While this sounded reasonable, he soon began to feel uneasy about the pace of work. The progress did not match expectations, and there was a lingering sense that something was not right.
Motivated to understand the situation better, the founder decided to take matters into his own hands. He purchased a subscription to a no-code development platform and began rebuilding the product independently. Surprisingly, he was able to reconstruct a significant portion of the system within just a few days, despite having no formal engineering experience. This raised serious concerns about the developer’s productivity and contribution.
Following this, he set a clear expectation. He asked the developer to match at least half of his own working speed and proposed transitioning to the newly rebuilt, cleaner codebase. He believed this was a reasonable demand, acknowledging that founders often work at an intense pace but expecting employees to maintain a decent level of productivity.
The developer initially agreed to the new setup, and tasks were clearly outlined with daily deliverables. To ensure fairness, the founder even cross-checked workload estimates with another experienced technical entrepreneur who had recently joined on a trial basis.
The first day showed some progress, but things quickly deteriorated. On the second day, there was no meaningful output. Just before the end-of-day review, the developer began raising basic issues and claiming obstacles, despite having all necessary access and instructions. During a follow-up discussion, the responses were vague and deflective, often turning into more questions rather than clear updates.
When asked directly about completed work, the developer initially claimed progress had been made but later admitted that nothing substantial had been done. This moment became the tipping point. For the founder, it confirmed a lack of accountability and honesty, making the decision to terminate the employment straightforward.
After ending the collaboration and revoking system access, the developer later reached out, agreeing that parting ways was the best option.
Reflecting on the experience, the founder acknowledged that there had been warning signs from the beginning. These included doubts during the hiring process, inconsistencies in task completion, slow performance, and even indications that the developer might have been working elsewhere simultaneously. He admitted that ignoring these signals was his own oversight.
However, he also emphasized that he would not let such experiences make him overly suspicious in the future, as constant doubt could affect judgment and peace of mind. His takeaway was simple: consistent delivery matters more than assumptions, but if results decline and something feels off, it is important to investigate promptly.
Jeevanth RamamurthyJeevanth Ramamurthy explained that he had dismissed the employee within just a few weeks of hiring, later realizing that the decision could have been taken even earlier. As someone without a technical background, he had been building his venture independently and brought in a developer with around two years of experience to accelerate product development. The salary was being paid directly from his own funds, making efficiency and output even more critical.
In the initial phase, he relied on the developer’s explanation that the existing code structure was disorganized and slowing down progress. While this sounded reasonable, he soon began to feel uneasy about the pace of work. The progress did not match expectations, and there was a lingering sense that something was not right.
Motivated to understand the situation better, the founder decided to take matters into his own hands. He purchased a subscription to a no-code development platform and began rebuilding the product independently. Surprisingly, he was able to reconstruct a significant portion of the system within just a few days, despite having no formal engineering experience. This raised serious concerns about the developer’s productivity and contribution.
Following this, he set a clear expectation. He asked the developer to match at least half of his own working speed and proposed transitioning to the newly rebuilt, cleaner codebase. He believed this was a reasonable demand, acknowledging that founders often work at an intense pace but expecting employees to maintain a decent level of productivity.
The developer initially agreed to the new setup, and tasks were clearly outlined with daily deliverables. To ensure fairness, the founder even cross-checked workload estimates with another experienced technical entrepreneur who had recently joined on a trial basis.
The first day showed some progress, but things quickly deteriorated. On the second day, there was no meaningful output. Just before the end-of-day review, the developer began raising basic issues and claiming obstacles, despite having all necessary access and instructions. During a follow-up discussion, the responses were vague and deflective, often turning into more questions rather than clear updates.
When asked directly about completed work, the developer initially claimed progress had been made but later admitted that nothing substantial had been done. This moment became the tipping point. For the founder, it confirmed a lack of accountability and honesty, making the decision to terminate the employment straightforward.
After ending the collaboration and revoking system access, the developer later reached out, agreeing that parting ways was the best option.
Reflecting on the experience, the founder acknowledged that there had been warning signs from the beginning. These included doubts during the hiring process, inconsistencies in task completion, slow performance, and even indications that the developer might have been working elsewhere simultaneously. He admitted that ignoring these signals was his own oversight.
However, he also emphasized that he would not let such experiences make him overly suspicious in the future, as constant doubt could affect judgment and peace of mind. His takeaway was simple: consistent delivery matters more than assumptions, but if results decline and something feels off, it is important to investigate promptly.
