Assuming "you" refers to a VC, the first answer is "Depends on the co-investor and how skilled they are at helping startups". If they indeed have the chops , then it should be taken seriously and along with the founders, a genuine attempt at adopting suggestions should be taken. I say suggestions because its very rare for a startup to completely alter its strategy based on an investor's suggestions, unless its in the middle of a full-fledged pivot and the advice being provided trumps all others in quality and ease of implementation. On the flip side, if the person is not qualified to provide advice ("dumb capital") and is being pushy, you should provide gentle but effective pushback to ensure regular operations don't get disrupted!

I would engage the co-investor in a data-driven discussion, assessing the strategy's potential impact and aligning it with the company’s long-term goals. If risks outweigh benefits, I’d advocate for a balanced approach, ensuring the company's sustainability and stakeholders’ interests remain protected.

This topic is in the VC section, so let's step back and differentiate VC from PE / LBO / M&A where investors tend to own larger stakes and take strategy. If we're in the early stages, when risk is more appropriate than investor strategy, investor-driving is risky. I wanna know if this is an investor who's just gonna write one check or if this is an investor who's gonna follow on and follow through. Also, I wanna know what the interests are and make sure they're aligned with the goal of swinging for the fences / having an autonomous exit. If we're in the later stages and a strategic investor has entered the room, I still remain outcome-focused. Aligning interests is critical. Structuring deals to incentivize interest alignment is essential.

I would find another mid- risky, low- risky and high- risky strategy and negotiate the terms for risk distribution. The market is full of options and opportunities, but risks shall be measured in line of business and capability of the companies.

I will assess the strategy’s risks and rewards, engage the board and management for input, and conduct a thorough risk assessment. If it’s too risky, I will propose balanced alternatives backed by data and collaborate to align on the best path forward.

First, I’d listen carefully to understand their perspective, every idea has a reason behind it. Then, I’d assess the risks and align the strategy with the company’s goals. If it’s too risky, I’d push for a balanced approach that safeguards the business while exploring opportunities. Collaboration is key, so I’d keep the conversation open, ensuring we make decisions that drive sustainable growth without compromising stability. It’s about finding the sweet spot between ambition and responsibility.

First a good chat and conversation deep to understand the process behind that decision. Like co-investor, I have to trust in his thoughts and ideas. But before we analyzed every scenario possible to create a counter strategy to put safeguards for that risky strategy in the long-term. The risk is not bad for itself, the problem is when you assume the risk without knowledge and perspective. Like a partner, I'm always going to push forward and help achieve the goals for my co-investor and my team. #StayFoolish and #StayHungry!

The founder should be the most important person to evaluate this scenario. He is the ultimate “strategizer”. Nonetheless, if this happens and you disagree with the co-investor vision and advice to the founder, try to answer these questions: 1. How does this strategy align with the company’s core strengths and competitive moat? 2. What structural safeguards are in place to mitigate potential downside scenarios? 3. Is there an alternative approach that achieves similar objectives with a better risk profile? In the end of the day, founders are the most important piece of the puzzle and the real trailblazers…

Examine the co-investor's idea in detail, assess whether the approach has any positive aspects and afterwards point out the risks of the approach in an intensive, well-founded and data driven discussion to the co-investor but also signalizing that the positive aspects can be implemented unanimously. The attempt to a joint approach is likely to be a long-term success for the company.