# Co-Founder Compatibility Assessment

**Purpose**: Structured questionnaire and scoring framework to evaluate co-founder compatibility across six critical dimensions.

**Related References:**
- See `first-hire-framework.md` for alternative hiring paths
- See `role-definitions.md` for co-founder role boundaries
- See `team-building-fundamentals.md` for core principles

**Important**: This assessment is a conversation starter, not a definitive verdict. No assessment replaces extended real-world collaboration. Always consult a business advisor for equity discussions.

---

## How to Use This Assessment

### Interactive Workflow

**Step 1 — Choose Your Mode**
- **Dual-Perspective**: Both parties complete independently, then compare results (recommended)
- **Single-Perspective**: One party completes based on their knowledge of the other (lower confidence)
- **Ideal Profile**: Solo founder completes based on what they seek in a co-founder

**Step 2 — Complete the Questionnaire**
Answer questions honestly for each dimension. Partial completion is supported — each dimension renders independently.

**Step 3 — Score Each Dimension**
Use the 1-5 scale provided. Apply the scoring rubric consistently.

**Step 4 — Generate Report**
Use the report template to document findings, strengths, and risk areas.

**Step 5 — Have Recommended Conversations**
Use conversation topics to deepen understanding before committing.

---

## Questionnaire

## complementary skills

1. What specific technical or business skills do you bring that the founder lacks?

2. What gaps in your own expertise do you expect the founder to fill?

3. Can you describe a project where you successfully collaborated with someone who had complementary skills?

4. How do you handle decisions outside your area of expertise?

5. What role do you naturally gravitate toward in a team setting?

---

## values alignment

1. What are your top three non-negotiable values in business (e.g., integrity, speed, quality, people-first)?

2. Can you describe a situation where you made a business decision that cost money but aligned with your values?

3. How do you balance profit with purpose?

4. What ethical boundaries would you never cross, even if it meant losing the business?

5. How do you define success beyond financial metrics?

---

## vision alignment

1. What does success look like for this company in 5 years?

2. Are you building a lifestyle business, a high-growth startup, or something in between?

3. What's your exit strategy timeline and preference (IPO, acquisition, never sell)?

4. How much control are you willing to give to investors?

5. What market size are you targeting (niche, regional, national, global)?

---

## work style compatibility

1. What are your preferred work hours and how do you handle work-life boundaries?

2. How do you prefer to communicate (async messages, scheduled calls, in-person)?

3. How would you describe your decision-making style (data-driven, intuitive, collaborative, decisive)?

4. How do you handle stress and pressure?

5. What is your approach to feedback, both giving and receiving?

---

## conflict resolution approach

1. Can you describe a significant professional conflict you had and how you resolved it?

2. How do you disagree with a business partner without damaging the relationship?

3. What is your process for making decisions when you strongly disagree?

4. How do you handle it when you're wrong?

5. Under what circumstances would you consider ending the partnership?

---

## equity expectations

1. What equity split do you believe is fair for your contribution and risk?

2. How should equity vesting be structured (e.g., 4-year cliff, monthly vesting)?

3. What happens to equity if a co-founder leaves early?

4. Should unequal time commitment or financial investment affect equity?

5. Have you and your potential co-founder discussed equity explicitly?

6. Are you open to adjusting equity based on changing circumstances?

**Note**: If equity has not yet been discussed, score this dimension as 1.0 and flag for mandatory pre-partnership discussion.

---

## Scoring Rubric

### Score Definitions (1-5 Scale Per Dimension)

**Score Definitions:**
- **5.0 (Excellent)**: Strong alignment, highly complementary, minimal concerns
- **4.0 (Good)**: Generally aligned, some minor differences
- **3.0 (Adequate)**: Moderate alignment, some concerns to discuss
- **2.0 (Concerning)**: Significant misalignment, major red flags
- **1.0 (Critical)**: Fundamental incompatibility, deal-breaker issues

### Overall Score Calculation

Calculate the overall compatibility score using a weighted average:

```
Overall Score = (Score1 × Weight1 + Score2 × Weight2 + ... + ScoreN × WeightN) / (Weight1 + Weight2 + ... + WeightN)
```

**Default weights:** All dimensions have equal importance (weight = 1.0).

Each dimension is self-contained with its own weight parameter, enabling extensibility — new dimensions can be added without modifying the scoring logic.

### Score Thresholds

**Strong Alignment (3.6 - 5.0)**:
- Proceed with confidence
- Focus on maintaining open communication
- Document agreed-upon processes

**Moderate Concern (2.1 - 3.5)**:
- Proceed with caution
- Address concerns through direct conversation
- Consider trial period or specific agreements

**High Risk (1.0 - 2.0)**:
- Critical issues requiring resolution before commitment
- Strongly recommend consulting a business advisor
- Reconsider partnership if concerns cannot be resolved

### Special Scoring Rules

**Undecided Equity**: If equity expectations are marked "undecided" or "not yet discussed," assign a score of 1.0 with a mandatory flag note. Display a critical pre-partnership discussion warning.

**Equal Scores**: If all six dimensions score identically, display a deeper exploration guidance message indicating that strengths and risk areas may be masked by uniform scoring.

**Single-Perspective Assessment**: If only one party completes the assessment, label the perspective type clearly and display a reduced confidence warning.

---

## Report Template

### Summary Table

| Dimension | Score | Weight | Weighted Score | Status |
|-----------|-------|--------|----------------|--------|
| Complementary Skills | [SCORE] | 1.0 | [SCORE × 1.0] | [STATUS] |
| Values Alignment | [SCORE] | 1.0 | [SCORE × 1.0] | [STATUS] |
| Vision Alignment | [SCORE] | 1.0 | [SCORE × 1.0] | [STATUS] |
| Work Style Compatibility | [SCORE] | 1.0 | [SCORE × 1.0] | [STATUS] |
| Conflict Resolution Approach | [SCORE] | 1.0 | [SCORE × 1.0] | [STATUS] |
| Equity Expectations | [SCORE] | 1.0 | [SCORE × 1.0] | [STATUS] |
| **Overall Score** | **[AVERAGE]** | **6.0** | **[TOTAL]** | **[OVERALL STATUS]** |

**Status Key**: Strong Alignment (3.6-5.0) | Moderate Concern (2.1-3.5) | High Risk (1.0-2.0)

---

### Strengths (3.6+ scores)

[Insert dimensions scoring 3.6 or higher here]

For each strength area:
- **Dimension**: [Dimension Name]
- **Score**: [Score]
- **Why it matters**: [Brief explanation]

**If all dimensions score identically**, display this message: "All dimensions received similar scores. This may indicate a need for deeper exploration to uncover specific strengths and differences. Consider discussing specific scenarios rather than general alignment."

---

### Risk Areas (2.0 or below scores)

[Insert dimensions scoring 2.0 or below here]

For each risk area:
- **Dimension**: [Dimension Name]
- **Score**: [Score]
- **Risk Description**: [Brief explanation]
- **Recommended Conversation**: [Specific topic to discuss]

**If no dimensions score 2.0 or below**, indicate: "No critical risk areas identified. Continue exploring moderate concerns to strengthen understanding."

---

### Recommended Conversations

For each risk area, provide at least one conversation starter:

**[Dimension Name]**
- "Let's discuss [specific scenario] to understand our differences better."
- "What would it take for us to align on [specific issue]?"
- "Can you share more about your perspective on [specific topic]?"

**For dimensions in the Moderate Concern range (2.1-3.5)**:
- Schedule a focused conversation to explore concerns
- Use open-ended questions to understand underlying values
- Document agreed-upon approaches

**For equity specifically (if flagged)**:
- CRITICAL: "Equity must be discussed before partnership commitment. Consult a business advisor for guidance on structuring equity splits fairly."

---

### Perspective and Confidence

**Perspective Type**: [Single-Perspective / Dual-Perspective / Ideal Profile]

**Confidence Level**:
- **High** — Dual-perspective assessment with significant discussion
- **Moderate** — Single-perspective with deep knowledge of other party
- **Reduced** — Single-perspective with limited interaction or ideal profile only

**Caution**: Single-perspective assessments carry reduced confidence. The other party's perspective may differ significantly.

---

## Extensibility Notes

This assessment is designed for extensibility:

**Add New Dimensions**
Create a new section with 3-10 questions. Assign a weight parameter (default 1.0). No changes to scoring logic required.

**Adjust Dimension Weights**
Modify the weight parameter for any dimension to reflect its relative importance to your specific situation.

**Partial Completion**
Each dimension renders independently. Complete dimensions in any order; the report generates valid Markdown output with partial data.

---

## Important Disclaimer

**This tool facilitates important conversations.** It does not replace legal counsel, extended trial collaboration, or professional business advice. Always consult a business advisor for equity discussions and partnership agreements.
