If your tech lead is using the word "stupid" to describe their loyalty, I'd say it's bad business. Note that the OP is not wondering whether they're underpaid or under-equitized, or any other in-kind value judgement, they're already past that. It's now a matter of pulling a simple switch and bailing into a seller's market. Competent C-levels avoid this situation, especially in a startup environment where the midstream boatchanging of technical leadership can have painful consequences.
It's irresponsible for a company leader to exploit a crucial employee who can learn the truth about their situation, not that letting the launch slip by a year doesn't already mark them as possibly-incompetent. I can't recall if it's Fred Brooks or something possibly-apocryphal, but the rule of thumb that I've heard is that schedules slip by the units the milestone is measured. If the deadline is "two months from now," the schedule will slip by two-month periods. Slipping by a year? The business may not even get off the ground. I realize that it may have slipped by a year in two month increments (e.g.), but in hindsight the company's momentum sure doesn't look healthy.
In your solution he's got to spend a bunch of his spare time applying for jobs first, which could all be a waste of time
Pure FUD.
If they're petty enough to be asses now, they'll be petty enough to be asses in the future.
If the OP is genuinely happy with the job itself
If your tech lead is using the word "stupid" to describe their loyalty, I'd say it's bad business. Note that the OP is not wondering whether they're underpaid or under-equitized, or any other in-kind value judgement, they're already past that. It's now a matter of pulling a simple switch and bailing into a seller's market. Competent C-levels avoid this situation, especially in a startup environment where the midstream boatchanging of technical leadership can have painful consequences.
It's irresponsible for a company leader to exploit a crucial employee who can learn the truth about their situation, not that letting the launch slip by a year doesn't already mark them as possibly-incompetent. I can't recall if it's Fred Brooks or something possibly-apocryphal, but the rule of thumb that I've heard is that schedules slip by the units the milestone is measured. If the deadline is "two months from now," the schedule will slip by two-month periods. Slipping by a year? The business may not even get off the ground. I realize that it may have slipped by a year in two month increments (e.g.), but in hindsight the company's momentum sure doesn't look healthy.
In your solution he's got to spend a bunch of his spare time applying for jobs first, which could all be a waste of time
Pure FUD.
If they're petty enough to be asses now, they'll be petty enough to be asses in the future.
True that.