7 ms·

My Complicated Relationship with No Longer Being CEO

234 points by doppp 11y ago

blazespin 11y ago
Wow! That was incredible. Must read for anyone and everyone at any level. If only we could get honest AND self aware posts like that from everyone. Critical quote: "I think, to be frank, I was also deeply selfish. I wanted Moz to be the kind of place I wanted to work, not the kind of place most likely to succeed with the team we had or were hiring, not the kind that fit best with what Sarah wanted, but my own little creation where things were weird and different and Rand-like." I really really appreciate this. I think if you want to become a CEO you have to first (critically!) a) figure out what makes a successful culture and then b) become a person who enjoys and thrives in that kind of culture. Do you have be born that way for "b"? I don't think so, though it probably helps.
- andreyf 11y ago
  Born what way? (serious question — "born the kind of person who thrives in a successful culture"? Seems a bit tautological / vague)
- poof131 11y ago
  I think if you want to become a CEO you have to first (critically!) a) figure out what makes a successful culture and then b) become a person who enjoys and thrives in that kind of culture. I don’t know if I see this as much value add. Finding out what makes a successful culture doesn’t seem trivial, much less easily repeatable. Different cultures can succeed in different circumstances and many different types of cultures can succeed. I also believe cultures evolve more than they are created. To me your argument sounds like saying “to succeed in starting a business you need to figure out what it takes to make a successful business and become a person who thrives doing that.” Working at Google is no more likely to teach you how to start a business than to create a culture. Sure you can learn things that worked there, but only some will work for you and some will likely work against you. The best I’d say you can do is recognize culture is important, try to learn what decisions leadership can make that affect culture, and understand how those decisions impact the business both short and long term. There’s no magic formula for business or for culture.
- 6d0debc071 11y ago
  In all the successful companies I've ever worked in/with, there have been different sub-cultures depending on what role you were fulfilling and what team you were part of. I suspect that part of the requirement for a successful culture is that it allows for the networking of the work of people from a wide range of different backgrounds; favouring different communication styles and patterns of working.
jacquesm 11y ago
That's a pretty incredible read. Anybody in a start-up either as a founder or a current CEO should read this and take it to heart. That took real guts to write, much more so than your average start-up post mortem or 'I messed up' post.
- mainguy 11y ago
  While I agree it's a great read and CEOs would be well served to understand what he's saying...I don't think that takes any more guts to write than a schmoe who posts something derogatory about their company..esp since 10% of the us population lives paycheck to paycheck (yes, look it up...10% of the population has ZERO savings [not even retirement money] and spend EVERY penny EVERY month)...and 25% have zero savings i.e. they may have a surplus, but nowhere NEAR a year's savings...
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    It's not derogatory. In fact, he's hitting the nail on the head with his insight that CEOs that tend to re-make the company in the image they'd like to see can do active harm if that image is sub-optimal (and it probably always is). That has nothing to do with how much money he has or with the fact that others are living paycheck to paycheck.
- FireBeyond 11y ago
  So if he's stepped down from and away from (almost) all his responsibilities as CEO... I'm left wondering - "Why do you still need your own Executive Admin"?
  - wtbob 11y ago
    There are a lot of folks who don't understand how important it is for a leader to have a personal secretary, executive admin, executive assistant, deputy or whatever you want to call the role. The sad truth is that, as hard as he might work, a man can't add a single hour to the day: every hour he spends dealing with one matter is an hour he doesn't spend attending to another. Leaders, despite being in many cases quite remarkable, aren't so remarkable that they can perform 15 minutes of manual labour in 15 seconds. That's where a good secretary can add so much value: he's a leader's right hand man, his second self. He can cut through or deal with the paperwork, the waits, the scheduling &c. and free the executive up to lead. An EA is an enabler in the best sense of the word. I've never had a secretary, but I've had the opportunity to work in that role. It's exhilarating to see someone one respects able to do his job that much better because of what one has been able to do. Obviously, in an ideal world almost anyone would have a deputy. Sadly, that's not numerically possible (and what about the assistants: surely they would benefit from having their own?). But I think it's close to vital that anyone whose value consists of meeting, connecting, travelling and so forth have a lieutenant to help smooth the way.
mainguy 11y ago
Huh, while interesting and well written and all the other happy happy/joy joy stuff everyone else posted...I can't help but wonder about folks who start out in life as founders/CEOs/top 'o the food chain...how do (can) they relate to folks who spend years working for others? This made me realize that many folks might in fact be so isolated/insulated from the folks that work for them that they are quite literally "out of touch" with the reality that vast majority experiences... interesting read.
- tedivm 11y ago
  This was definitely the case at the last place I worked. Most of the "upper management" (with some key exceptions) had literally never once had a job, and it really showed in a number of ways. Frankly I think Fishkin made the right decision, because if he ever steps into another CEO role (which I think is likely) he will be much better at it due to his experiences around this. I also really want to say how much I appreciate the fact that he wrote this. One of the bigger problems with C-Level people is that they try to act infallible. This seriously hurts there ability to grow. Being able to have conversations like this is beneficial to everyone involved, but it takes a certain amount of bravery to start that conversation.
- nugget 11y ago
  It's a different experience, for sure, but not necessarily an easier one. Common perception is that founder CEO's call all the shots like some third world dictator whose word is law and cannot even be questioned. Well, appearances can be deceiving. I went from undergrad to CEO of a startup that my best friend and I founded. I very much had a boss: our lead investor who settled in as Chairman of the Board and unleashed his domineering personality to run rampant on our weekly management calls. I had an extreme amount of pressure from him to hit deadlines and hold ourselves accountable to our excel projections (which, like most early startup projections, were pretty useless to begin with). Over time, as success bought some freedom from the board and investors, a few of our most important anchor clients filled their role instead. I would spend months feeling like a certain VP or SVP at a make-or-break client for us was basically calling the shots in large areas of my life. In hindsight what we were lacking was real mentorship, management guidance, and similar help, (unfortunately) none of which were included with capital from our investors. We figured it out as we went along while taking flack from all sides. Only later when we were acquired and I had a ''normal'' boss with a ''normal'' p&l, career oriented direct reports, etc, did I realize how different it is, in some ways worse but in some ways much better. It was a heck of a lot more predictable and less stressful. I didn't have to pull any rabbits out of hats I just had to wander over to the rabbit cage and feed them. But, without a doubt, experiencing the whole cycle made me a better founder down the road.
xyzzy4 11y ago
Good read but it also seems like a humblebrag.
- ecommerceguy 11y ago
  rand humblebrag? nooo waayyy
Signez 11y ago
> Spent hours doing work […] whose purpose I can’t understand (that has been entirely new). I don't think it is related to the employee condition, but more with sub-optimal top-down communication. I never worked without knowing the purpose of what I was doing, in my professional life. And I think that I will quit my job if this happens — I didn't choose to work in a startup to work blindly on tasks without context and being able to participate.
apalmer 11y ago
Interesting... ultimately although I don't think he clearly states it... being CEO is not for most people... you can have the brains, the willpower and even be successful in the role, all while feeling horrible about it... I somewhat to a degree found the posting to be a bit in bad taste... a bit too 'honest' in his feelings that the company is being run 'wrong'...
- goodcanadian 11y ago
  I didn't get that. If anything, he is admitting that the way he would prefer to run the company is "wrong" or at least, sub-optimal.
crabasa 11y ago
This was a fascinating read, but I couldn't help but wonder: Why was this posted on moz.com? Who is the target audience for this story? What's the tl;dr? I empathized with Rand's struggle to square his selfish/quirky desires with what was good for the company, but those questions above made me wonder: how does this blog post help Moz?
- drumdance 11y ago
  He's always posted stuff like this on Moz, from the very beginning.
  - apalmer 11y ago
    I think thats kind of the point though... Posting whatever you want on Moz when your the founder and CEO is one thing. Posting such indepth material that casts a not necessarily positive light when you have been removed from control (perhaps by your own hand) is another... I am imagining that these kind of heartfelt posts draw more attention to the marketing firm with such impact that the current CEO thinks its worth dealing with the negatives...
    - drumdance 11y ago
      Maybe, I don't know enough to say. But radical transparency has always been part of their brand. Here's one he wrote a few years ago about their Series B. It was so comprehensive that TechCrunch just linked to the post instead of trying to dig up more info behind the scenes. https://moz.com/blog/mozs-18-million-venture-financing-our-story-metrics-and-future https://moz.com/blog/mozs-18-million-venture-financing-our-s...
  - crabasa 11y ago
    But wasn't this entire post about recognizing that he can't just do things the way he always has? That what works for Rand doesn't always work for everyone else at Moz? I felt like this post was filled with mixed emotions and messages and if I worked at Moz I might not know what to make of it.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
samuelgrittner 11y ago
What is moz? Mozilla? Please don't post stuff like this if nobody knows the company.
- teach 11y ago
  I don't think it's too much to expect readers to do a little googling about a company they aren't familiar with. This was an excellent article whether or not you know anything about moz.com, and finding out is easily remedied.
- balls187 11y ago
  Is there posting guidelines that prohibit posting things like this? Otherwise, enough people voted for this submission to be relevant.
- mikestew 11y ago
  Wow, barely three weeks into your new account and you already want to dictate what gets posted. Regardless, what Moz does is about as far away from my day-to-day work (or even my interest) as you can get, and even I know what their business is. Doesn't matter, plenty of postings here are about companies I've never heard of, so I go look them up. Takes less time than it took you to type your comment. Lastly, what Moz does has little bearing on the content of the article. They could make oil filters for cars and the content would stand on its own (well, mostly).
x0x0 11y ago
This was interesting to read. Apparently one of the things precipitating Rand leaving the ceo job was mismanaging a major project with an initial budget of 6-9 months and targeted release date of July '12 that slid to Oct '13 -- not only a slip of 15 months, but a very buggy release even after major feature triage. Though Rand doesn't say it, I'm guessing this was pretty hard on their engineering staff. As an engineer who's worked on a similar death march with a major schedule slip that turns out to have been totally unnecessary, it was nice to see some accountability passed upwards for a change.
hotdog7 11y ago
This message is so clearly directed at the internal audience of Moz to try and frame his failures to rise as the CEO from a founder and garner internal support. If I'm Sahah, I'm clearly annoyed at this and see it as part of the reason he lost the job in the first place. All the drama he presents you don't see coming from any other CEO or corner office in tech. The real 'honesty' is clearly read between the lines that he doesn't want Sarah to be the CEO and wishes he were still in the position despite his former and current failings. Companies reach a tipping point at which time they need an operator instead of a perpetrator of drama following bad results.
- randycupertino 11y ago
  His whole blog reads as: Ineffective Hipster CEO Ousted, Has Sour Grapes
simonswords82 11y ago
I founded a software company about 10 years ago, and moved on from my CEO position 6 months ago. A lot of what Rand says really resonated with me. I too had started to make mistakes, mis-managing the company by making decisions that were far too emotional and not strategic enough. The high pressure, make quick decisions, life or death mindset that is necessary for a startup is not compatible with a company that has matured. In fact, in my experience CEOs/founders of companies that are growing successfully will throw bombs in to the building. I'm sure many of you have read about VCs removing founders from growing businesses. Founders simply aren't compatible anymore. I'll leave the psychology of why they do this to somebody else, but in my personal experience I decided to move on from the CEO position because I found myself having to do work, make decisions and partake in meetings that were no longer a reflection of the business I wanted to create 10 years ago. In fact, I can recall the exact moment when I realised it was my time to get out of the way. I was sat in a disciplinary meeting with a member of staff who was under performing. At the end of the meeting I said to the woman running the meeting with me who is now the CEO "This isn't why I started a business, what am I doing here?". A few long chats later and I had made the decision to handover to her and the business is already performing better under her command. Like people, businesses evolve and mature as they grow, and good founders need to know when to get out of the way. Rand clearly feels he did unnecessary damage to Moz; I wonder if he could go back in time if he would have given up his CEO position a few years earlier?

234 points by doppp 11y ago

Wow! That was incredible. Must read for anyone and everyone at any level. If only we could get honest AND self aware posts like that from everyone. Critical quote: "I think, to be frank, I was also deeply selfish. I wanted Moz to be the kind of place I wanted to work, not the kind of place most likely to succeed with the team we had or were hiring, not the kind that fit best with what Sarah wanted, but my own little creation where things were weird and different and Rand-like." I really really appreciate this. I think if you want to become a CEO you have to first (critically!) a) figure out what makes a successful culture and then b) become a person who enjoys and thrives in that kind of culture. Do you have be born that way for "b"? I don't think so, though it probably helps.

andreyf 11y ago
Born what way? (serious question — "born the kind of person who thrives in a successful culture"? Seems a bit tautological / vague)
poof131 11y ago
I think if you want to become a CEO you have to first (critically!) a) figure out what makes a successful culture and then b) become a person who enjoys and thrives in that kind of culture. I don’t know if I see this as much value add. Finding out what makes a successful culture doesn’t seem trivial, much less easily repeatable. Different cultures can succeed in different circumstances and many different types of cultures can succeed. I also believe cultures evolve more than they are created. To me your argument sounds like saying “to succeed in starting a business you need to figure out what it takes to make a successful business and become a person who thrives doing that.” Working at Google is no more likely to teach you how to start a business than to create a culture. Sure you can learn things that worked there, but only some will work for you and some will likely work against you. The best I’d say you can do is recognize culture is important, try to learn what decisions leadership can make that affect culture, and understand how those decisions impact the business both short and long term. There’s no magic formula for business or for culture.
6d0debc071 11y ago
In all the successful companies I've ever worked in/with, there have been different sub-cultures depending on what role you were fulfilling and what team you were part of. I suspect that part of the requirement for a successful culture is that it allows for the networking of the work of people from a wide range of different backgrounds; favouring different communication styles and patterns of working.

jacquesm 11y ago

That's a pretty incredible read. Anybody in a start-up either as a founder or a current CEO should read this and take it to heart. That took real guts to write, much more so than your average start-up post mortem or 'I messed up' post.

mainguy 11y ago
While I agree it's a great read and CEOs would be well served to understand what he's saying...I don't think that takes any more guts to write than a schmoe who posts something derogatory about their company..esp since 10% of the us population lives paycheck to paycheck (yes, look it up...10% of the population has ZERO savings [not even retirement money] and spend EVERY penny EVERY month)...and 25% have zero savings i.e. they may have a surplus, but nowhere NEAR a year's savings...
- jacquesm 11y ago
  It's not derogatory. In fact, he's hitting the nail on the head with his insight that CEOs that tend to re-make the company in the image they'd like to see can do active harm if that image is sub-optimal (and it probably always is). That has nothing to do with how much money he has or with the fact that others are living paycheck to paycheck.
FireBeyond 11y ago
So if he's stepped down from and away from (almost) all his responsibilities as CEO... I'm left wondering - "Why do you still need your own Executive Admin"?
- wtbob 11y ago
  There are a lot of folks who don't understand how important it is for a leader to have a personal secretary, executive admin, executive assistant, deputy or whatever you want to call the role. The sad truth is that, as hard as he might work, a man can't add a single hour to the day: every hour he spends dealing with one matter is an hour he doesn't spend attending to another. Leaders, despite being in many cases quite remarkable, aren't so remarkable that they can perform 15 minutes of manual labour in 15 seconds. That's where a good secretary can add so much value: he's a leader's right hand man, his second self. He can cut through or deal with the paperwork, the waits, the scheduling &c. and free the executive up to lead. An EA is an enabler in the best sense of the word. I've never had a secretary, but I've had the opportunity to work in that role. It's exhilarating to see someone one respects able to do his job that much better because of what one has been able to do. Obviously, in an ideal world almost anyone would have a deputy. Sadly, that's not numerically possible (and what about the assistants: surely they would benefit from having their own?). But I think it's close to vital that anyone whose value consists of meeting, connecting, travelling and so forth have a lieutenant to help smooth the way.

mainguy 11y ago

Huh, while interesting and well written and all the other happy happy/joy joy stuff everyone else posted...I can't help but wonder about folks who start out in life as founders/CEOs/top 'o the food chain...how do (can) they relate to folks who spend years working for others? This made me realize that many folks might in fact be so isolated/insulated from the folks that work for them that they are quite literally "out of touch" with the reality that vast majority experiences... interesting read.

tedivm 11y ago
This was definitely the case at the last place I worked. Most of the "upper management" (with some key exceptions) had literally never once had a job, and it really showed in a number of ways. Frankly I think Fishkin made the right decision, because if he ever steps into another CEO role (which I think is likely) he will be much better at it due to his experiences around this. I also really want to say how much I appreciate the fact that he wrote this. One of the bigger problems with C-Level people is that they try to act infallible. This seriously hurts there ability to grow. Being able to have conversations like this is beneficial to everyone involved, but it takes a certain amount of bravery to start that conversation.
nugget 11y ago
It's a different experience, for sure, but not necessarily an easier one. Common perception is that founder CEO's call all the shots like some third world dictator whose word is law and cannot even be questioned. Well, appearances can be deceiving. I went from undergrad to CEO of a startup that my best friend and I founded. I very much had a boss: our lead investor who settled in as Chairman of the Board and unleashed his domineering personality to run rampant on our weekly management calls. I had an extreme amount of pressure from him to hit deadlines and hold ourselves accountable to our excel projections (which, like most early startup projections, were pretty useless to begin with). Over time, as success bought some freedom from the board and investors, a few of our most important anchor clients filled their role instead. I would spend months feeling like a certain VP or SVP at a make-or-break client for us was basically calling the shots in large areas of my life. In hindsight what we were lacking was real mentorship, management guidance, and similar help, (unfortunately) none of which were included with capital from our investors. We figured it out as we went along while taking flack from all sides. Only later when we were acquired and I had a ''normal'' boss with a ''normal'' p&l, career oriented direct reports, etc, did I realize how different it is, in some ways worse but in some ways much better. It was a heck of a lot more predictable and less stressful. I didn't have to pull any rabbits out of hats I just had to wander over to the rabbit cage and feed them. But, without a doubt, experiencing the whole cycle made me a better founder down the road.

xyzzy4 11y ago

Good read but it also seems like a humblebrag.

ecommerceguy 11y ago
rand humblebrag? nooo waayyy

Signez 11y ago

> Spent hours doing work […] whose purpose I can’t understand (that has been entirely new). I don't think it is related to the employee condition, but more with sub-optimal top-down communication. I never worked without knowing the purpose of what I was doing, in my professional life. And I think that I will quit my job if this happens — I didn't choose to work in a startup to work blindly on tasks without context and being able to participate.

apalmer 11y ago

Interesting... ultimately although I don't think he clearly states it... being CEO is not for most people... you can have the brains, the willpower and even be successful in the role, all while feeling horrible about it... I somewhat to a degree found the posting to be a bit in bad taste... a bit too 'honest' in his feelings that the company is being run 'wrong'...

goodcanadian 11y ago
I didn't get that. If anything, he is admitting that the way he would prefer to run the company is "wrong" or at least, sub-optimal.

crabasa 11y ago

This was a fascinating read, but I couldn't help but wonder: Why was this posted on moz.com? Who is the target audience for this story? What's the tl;dr? I empathized with Rand's struggle to square his selfish/quirky desires with what was good for the company, but those questions above made me wonder: how does this blog post help Moz?

drumdance 11y ago
He's always posted stuff like this on Moz, from the very beginning.
- apalmer 11y ago
  I think thats kind of the point though... Posting whatever you want on Moz when your the founder and CEO is one thing. Posting such indepth material that casts a not necessarily positive light when you have been removed from control (perhaps by your own hand) is another... I am imagining that these kind of heartfelt posts draw more attention to the marketing firm with such impact that the current CEO thinks its worth dealing with the negatives...
  - drumdance 11y ago
    Maybe, I don't know enough to say. But radical transparency has always been part of their brand. Here's one he wrote a few years ago about their Series B. It was so comprehensive that TechCrunch just linked to the post instead of trying to dig up more info behind the scenes. https://moz.com/blog/mozs-18-million-venture-financing-our-story-metrics-and-future https://moz.com/blog/mozs-18-million-venture-financing-our-s...
- crabasa 11y ago
  But wasn't this entire post about recognizing that he can't just do things the way he always has? That what works for Rand doesn't always work for everyone else at Moz? I felt like this post was filled with mixed emotions and messages and if I worked at Moz I might not know what to make of it.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

samuelgrittner 11y ago

What is moz? Mozilla? Please don't post stuff like this if nobody knows the company.

teach 11y ago
I don't think it's too much to expect readers to do a little googling about a company they aren't familiar with. This was an excellent article whether or not you know anything about moz.com, and finding out is easily remedied.
balls187 11y ago
Is there posting guidelines that prohibit posting things like this? Otherwise, enough people voted for this submission to be relevant.
mikestew 11y ago
Wow, barely three weeks into your new account and you already want to dictate what gets posted. Regardless, what Moz does is about as far away from my day-to-day work (or even my interest) as you can get, and even I know what their business is. Doesn't matter, plenty of postings here are about companies I've never heard of, so I go look them up. Takes less time than it took you to type your comment. Lastly, what Moz does has little bearing on the content of the article. They could make oil filters for cars and the content would stand on its own (well, mostly).

x0x0 11y ago

This was interesting to read. Apparently one of the things precipitating Rand leaving the ceo job was mismanaging a major project with an initial budget of 6-9 months and targeted release date of July '12 that slid to Oct '13 -- not only a slip of 15 months, but a very buggy release even after major feature triage. Though Rand doesn't say it, I'm guessing this was pretty hard on their engineering staff. As an engineer who's worked on a similar death march with a major schedule slip that turns out to have been totally unnecessary, it was nice to see some accountability passed upwards for a change.

hotdog7 11y ago

This message is so clearly directed at the internal audience of Moz to try and frame his failures to rise as the CEO from a founder and garner internal support. If I'm Sahah, I'm clearly annoyed at this and see it as part of the reason he lost the job in the first place. All the drama he presents you don't see coming from any other CEO or corner office in tech. The real 'honesty' is clearly read between the lines that he doesn't want Sarah to be the CEO and wishes he were still in the position despite his former and current failings. Companies reach a tipping point at which time they need an operator instead of a perpetrator of drama following bad results.

randycupertino 11y ago
His whole blog reads as: Ineffective Hipster CEO Ousted, Has Sour Grapes

simonswords82 11y ago

I founded a software company about 10 years ago, and moved on from my CEO position 6 months ago. A lot of what Rand says really resonated with me. I too had started to make mistakes, mis-managing the company by making decisions that were far too emotional and not strategic enough. The high pressure, make quick decisions, life or death mindset that is necessary for a startup is not compatible with a company that has matured. In fact, in my experience CEOs/founders of companies that are growing successfully will throw bombs in to the building. I'm sure many of you have read about VCs removing founders from growing businesses. Founders simply aren't compatible anymore. I'll leave the psychology of why they do this to somebody else, but in my personal experience I decided to move on from the CEO position because I found myself having to do work, make decisions and partake in meetings that were no longer a reflection of the business I wanted to create 10 years ago. In fact, I can recall the exact moment when I realised it was my time to get out of the way. I was sat in a disciplinary meeting with a member of staff who was under performing. At the end of the meeting I said to the woman running the meeting with me who is now the CEO "This isn't why I started a business, what am I doing here?". A few long chats later and I had made the decision to handover to her and the business is already performing better under her command. Like people, businesses evolve and mature as they grow, and good founders need to know when to get out of the way. Rand clearly feels he did unnecessary damage to Moz; I wonder if he could go back in time if he would have given up his CEO position a few years earlier?