7 ms·

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

by 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.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  That was - I'm trying hard here not to be harsh on you - because you let him. If you're inexperienced I can easily see how this situation could come into play but you as a majority shareholder, co-founder and CEO have no boss, certainly not your chairman-of-the-board investor. That's a relationship that you will have to manage, that's for sure but if you see him as your boss you imply that he has the right to throw you out or sanction you and that isn't the case, as majority share holders you and your co-founder should be in control of the company and the board should have an advisory role. If the company goes public, hires an outsider CEO who is not a part of the founding team or if the founder-CEO is not seeing eye-to-eye with the other founders then the board can become more dominant.
  - asah 11y ago
    If you depend on that outside investor to support (take pro-rata, say upbeat things etc) your next round, then you have little choice but to say "how high" when such a board member says jump.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      I really disagree with that. Board members (and other shareholders for that matter) can hold you accountable for mis-steps but if they get in the way of you doing your job then you owe it to yourself and your company to manage the relationship in such a way that they do not have the ability to impose on you in such a way. That's also in the best interest of that investor. Structuring and managing relationships is one of the things a CEO should be good at if the company is to become successful. This goes for the relationships with the rest of the company management, it goes for outsiders and it goes for the board. If a CEO is hired by the board then that changes but if you found it you should be in charge and you should make it clear - in a respectful way and if necessary by educating your board members - why that is the case. > If you depend on that outside investor to support (take pro-rata, say upbeat things etc) your next round He or she will say upbeat things regardless (because they're already in it is in their own interest), whether or not they will take pro-rata shares with a next emission will depend on the price and their ability to purchase as much as anything else so I would not count on it regardless and take it as a nice-to-have but not a must. If you behave like someone else is in control they are in control. Don't do that.

by mainguy 11y ago

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.

jacquesm 11y ago
That was - I'm trying hard here not to be harsh on you - because you let him. If you're inexperienced I can easily see how this situation could come into play but you as a majority shareholder, co-founder and CEO have no boss, certainly not your chairman-of-the-board investor. That's a relationship that you will have to manage, that's for sure but if you see him as your boss you imply that he has the right to throw you out or sanction you and that isn't the case, as majority share holders you and your co-founder should be in control of the company and the board should have an advisory role. If the company goes public, hires an outsider CEO who is not a part of the founding team or if the founder-CEO is not seeing eye-to-eye with the other founders then the board can become more dominant.
- asah 11y ago
  If you depend on that outside investor to support (take pro-rata, say upbeat things etc) your next round, then you have little choice but to say "how high" when such a board member says jump.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    I really disagree with that. Board members (and other shareholders for that matter) can hold you accountable for mis-steps but if they get in the way of you doing your job then you owe it to yourself and your company to manage the relationship in such a way that they do not have the ability to impose on you in such a way. That's also in the best interest of that investor. Structuring and managing relationships is one of the things a CEO should be good at if the company is to become successful. This goes for the relationships with the rest of the company management, it goes for outsiders and it goes for the board. If a CEO is hired by the board then that changes but if you found it you should be in charge and you should make it clear - in a respectful way and if necessary by educating your board members - why that is the case. > If you depend on that outside investor to support (take pro-rata, say upbeat things etc) your next round He or she will say upbeat things regardless (because they're already in it is in their own interest), whether or not they will take pro-rata shares with a next emission will depend on the price and their ability to purchase as much as anything else so I would not count on it regardless and take it as a nice-to-have but not a must. If you behave like someone else is in control they are in control. Don't do that.