13 ms·

It always amazes me how you can convince a founder/CEO is not right man for the job, and slowly push him away. Companies that succeed are driven by burning vis

It always amazes me how you can convince a founder/CEO is not right man for the job, and slowly push him away. Companies that succeed are driven by burning vision, not by day-to-day operation people. It might make feel the companies run smoother for some time, but day-to-day executives are harmful to a company core vision leading to boring companies if they manage to sustain profitability in the long run at all.

fleitz 9y ago
That’s incredibly myopic, there are lots of successful businesses that run because everything runs smoothly. What is the burning vision of Coca Cola? I’m pretty sure their business is successful because they sell the same product year after year with little to no change.
chrisvalleybay 9y ago
That's a pretty harsh generalisation. Edit: I should probably expand on that. Yes, in some cases keeping the founder as a CEO can be important for the morale of the team, but sometimes bringing in outside experience (the so called 'adult supervision') can be very important for a company. Eric Schmidt did a great job doing this for Google, before he assumed the role as chairman, leaving the CEO post for the founders at a later point.
c_r_w 9y ago
Whereas effective leaders are required to manage not only the day-to-day, but turning the core vision into an actual business plan that can pay employees rather than just burn VC money. My experience is the opposite; I've worked at two companies where the founder has returned to be CEO and in both cases they were highly ineffective.
- eruditepanda 9y ago
  I'd concur, the generalization of one being better than the other just doesn't fit. I've worked for companies that fit into both situations and it really comes down to whether the founder had the skills to begin with or whether they were willing to admit that they needed help on the day-to-day operations & maintenance, etc.
  - c_r_w 9y ago
    Agreed. There is this concept of the wheel of energy, people tend to be good at different parts of the wheel: Starting Growing Containing Completing Founder types tend to be amazing at Starting, and sometimes at Growing. But at a certain point, you need to bring in the people who are better at the Growing/Containing phase. IMHO most Founder/CEOs don't have this distinction and can't see how what makes them terrific at the beginning hobbles the company as it tries to become a stable business.
bsaul 9y ago
i guess it's a cycle. When a company needs to innovate to build its first iterations then the founder role is crucial, but then come the time of finding the best way to make money out of the product, and have a sustainable and well organized company. In that moment, (technical) founders find themselves a bit bored. The ideal would be for them to get back to pure R&D for a year or two, to discover more paths for the company's future. The problem is that carriers in a company only go one direction. Once you are a C-something the only way left is out.
- mmsimanga 9y ago
  Agreed. Most activities in big companies are not even remotely related to the core technology or idea that brought the company into existence. As company grows, training departments grow to train new clients, technical writing teams grow to write documentation in different languages, technical teams grow to support the many different operating systems and markets, HR department grow to support the many people now working at the company and soon the effort required to coordinate all these people is more than the effort put into the original product. Some founders adapt to the changing needs of the company some don't like all the admin.
romanhn 9y ago
There is a reason why most startups don't go big - burning vision is not even close to being the right formula for success. Running a company of 10 people is VERY different from running a company of 100, which is VERY VERY different from running a company of 1000. Just like precious few individual contributors are comfortable with and able to contribute meaningfully in this wide range of environments, it doesn't make sense that a CEO is somehow exempted from that. The day-to-day operations are in fact incredibly different and present unique challenges. Note: I'm not saying this is what's happening here, just responding to the general comment above.
- maerF0x0 9y ago
  > Running a company of 10 people is VERY different from running a company of 100, which is VERY VERY different from running a company of 1000 IMO thats a classist lie that keeps people in their place. Any reasonably smart CEO can learn his way from 10 - 10000. Yes, (s)he may not be capable of 10k on day one, but they can grow along the way.
  - atonse 9y ago
    Ehh I'm not so sure. There are different levels of abstractions involved in a 10 person company vs a 1000 person company. At the 5000 employee level, you are probably dealing with a ton of abstractions that were filtered multiple levels up.
    - weego 9y ago
      Let's all admit that we don't know because we're not/have not been in that scenario rather than picking arbitrary milestones and making guesses
  - fizx 9y ago
    It's probably a little bit like a Cessna pilot trying to land a 747. I'm sure the plane can almost land itself, and ground control can talk you through it, but wouldn't you rather have someone who has done it before?
codingdave 9y ago
CEOs that succeed also have the correct burning vision. CEOs with a flawed vision often drive companies into the ground. I'm not talking about anyone specific here, just noting that many founding CEOs hold too tightly to their own personal vision rather than adjusting it to the market's demands to create a solid direction.
moftz 9y ago
You can't have explosive growth forever. At some point, you look around and realize that you don't need to worry about coming up with big ideas anymore and that what you've developed is mature enough to be a real revenue generator. Hykes clearly isn't the kind of person that likes to sit back so he's off to find a replacement, the guy that will be really good at streamlining what Docker does (and ensuring that the stock does well).
geofft 9y ago
> Companies that succeed are driven by burning vision, not by day-to-day operation people. What is the evidence for this? We can throw anecdotes like Apple on one side and Unilever on the other, sure, but is there any study saying e.g. "Of these 100 promising companies founded in 1990, x% of the founder-led ones were successful by 2010 whereas y% of the outside-CEO-led ones were?" Making a bold claim like "Companies that succeed have X cool-sounding behavior" is the realm of business books in airport bookstores. It would be nice to take a more data-driven approach.
- ineedasername 9y ago
  Also, the vast majority of startups do not lack for drive & vision, but most will fail. Vision may be necessary for a new company, but it certainly isn't sufficient.
- LaGrange 9y ago
  > What is the evidence for this? GP's burning vision, of course. I once had my vision burn so hard my landlord charged me for the floor paneling.
- kornish 9y ago
  Noam Wasserman (Harvard, USC) studies exactly this in a paper called "Rich vs King". As you can guess from the name, the conclusion is that bringing in outside generally management maximizes the expected value of equity. https://hbr.org/2008/02/the-founders-dilemma https://hbr.org/2008/02/the-founders-dilemma
  - geofft 9y ago
    Thanks! One thing the article brings up is that "success" may not be synonymous with "financial success". If you have a specific burning vision for a thing that should exist in the world, it might not be the most profitable thing, and the founder staying on is probably a good way for exactly that product to exist - but an outside CEO might choose to compromise the product vision and significantly expand the potential market in doing so.
zaidf 9y ago
Companies that succeed are driven by burning vision, not by day-to-day operation people. They are not mutually exclusive; thinking that they are is a recipe for failure.
manigandham 9y ago
Both are critical. You have a goal and then you make progress. Neither is enough on its own.
zer00eyz 9y ago
Lets step away from the "company" aspect of it, because docker is also a project. If this post were by someone named Linus, or Guido, (or Jobs) or any number of other names I can think of - people would be freaking out. Yet the reaction so far is one thatI can only describe as "meh" - there wasn't a scandal (uber) there isn't a failure (intel) and people mostly (with exception) like the product. I wonder what the future holds for docker after this change. Also that art at the end, looks great but all I could think of was "fail whale" when looking at it (and not docker).
ineedasername 9y ago
The people that have both are outliers, but massively successful: Bezos, Jobs, etc. But that just shows the importance of having both types of leadership in a company, because the type of drive that grows an innovative company isn't the same as what keeps them in the top spot. This isn't a simple binary variable, just about every company has had or will have to find their balance on this. It may not be glamorous, but no matter how innovative or successful, someone (many people really) have to have an eye on day to day operations. A CEO should have vision, yes, but their job isn't just to have vision, it's to share that vision with the people under them, the day to day people that have to be in place, and will make the best day-to-day decisions only if they understand and share that vision.
jwildeboer 9y ago
Disagree. Counter example: Red Hat (disclaimer: I’m at Red Hat since almost 13 years). Founded by realistic visionaries (Bob Young and Mark Ewing). Bob was smart enough to bring in Matthew Szulik, who gave Red Hat structure and growth. And Matthew was smart enough to hand over to Jim Whitehurst. Red Hat is nowadays a smooth running company with 64 quarters of growth, with a portfolio that goes far beyond Linux. Execution is key. Having passionate employees a must.
- Godel_unicode 9y ago
  This is a good point. I think that a company needs burning passion at the team level in order to succeed, and calm reasoning heads handling the day to day to allow those passionate people to continue to do what they do.
- vram22 9y ago
  Bob Young founded Lulu.com, the ebooks and print books company, before Red Hat, IIRC. That was an early pioneering ebook and self-publishing company startup, I think.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    Lulu.com was founded in 2002 after Bob Young left Red Hat.
    - vram22 9y ago
      Okay, I got that the other way around, thanks. Seems there was quite a gap between the two foundings, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lulu.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lulu.com
      - vram22 9y ago
        Looked up Bob Young on Google: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Young_(businessman) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Young_(businessman) and it seems he also was a co-founder of Linux Journal! Didn't know. Cool. His work has had quite an impact.
paulie_a 9y ago
I vehemently disagree, burning vision is wasted when you don't focus on the day to day. The day to day is what actually leads to revenue and hopefully actual profits. You can only burn vc money for so long until you actually have to show some sort of return.
Godel_unicode 9y ago
Counterpoint: Google brought in an established CEO to get the nuts and bolts of being a big company working correctly. I would say that Google is pretty successful.
- neolefty 9y ago
  I think that also points out the value of engaged investors and board. I don't know the details but I am under the impression they really facilitated that process -- recommended the idea, found candidates including Eric Schmidt, did the whole thing without disempowering Larry & Sergei, etc.
- mywittyname 9y ago
  Because the Google founders were PhDs with more technical interest than business. Plenty of companies are founded by people who aspire to lead large companies.
justicezyx 9y ago
At least for fundamental things like containers, Docker's current founder definitely is not a match for many other people in technical capability and experiences. The later part is more severe.
sah2ed 9y ago
It called facing reality and realizing that certain phases in a company's growth require having someone with real world experience at the helm. It's the reason why John Doerr brought in Eric Schmidt as Google's CEO for adult supervision. Good investors, in addition to bringing cash, also bring with them accumulated experience from previous rodeos, which means they'll be able to recommend a few qualified hires for the up hill battle ahead, if it is clear the founder is lacking in requisite experience.
milesdyson_phd 9y ago
Ideas get you to the 50 yard line, execution gets you into the end zone.
- mizzao 9y ago
  More like the 21 yard line?
zupreme 9y ago
I disagree. This is EXACTLY why roles such as "Chief Operating Officer" and "Director of Operations" exist. You don't make your company succeed by giving up control. You hire people you do control who have the skills you lack.
- ghaff 9y ago
  And those skills may include taking the company in directions that you may not agree with. What then?
  - dcole2929 9y ago
    You have to be smart enough, and humble enough to recognize when someone else's vision is what your company needs at the moment. I'd imagine that a good CEO would be able to both simultaneously provide the direction of a company while also accepting input, on how to actually get there. Navigation, and steering are two different things
- WJW 9y ago
  What if the skill the founder lacks is in leadership or vision? People like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg who can code AND lead are the absolute minority. I know more than a few founders who, while charismatic, absolutely do not have the temperament or skills to grow the business beyond 50 or people.
- goatherders 9y ago
  >> you dont make your company succeed by giving up control. Of course you do. Every time a new hire is made the founder gives up some control. The secretary now chooses the paper for the copy machine. The sales guy now enunciates the detail of the offering to the prospect. The engineer codes in her specific way. Growing a company is ALL about giving up control in exchange for accelerated growth of the business.
- PeterisP 9y ago
  That's exactly what is being done - the founder stays on the board as a shareholder and controls the decisions on overall direction, goals and the vision of the company, and hires an executive that has the skills required for management of a large company and will execute these goals.
reeeprgenx 9y ago
"Companies that succeed are driven by burning vision" lol. /not even close.
- goatherders 9y ago
  Not sure why this was downvoted. It's a good (and correct) point.
  - croshan 9y ago
    It doesn't really add much to the conversation, and it comes off as rude.
debt 9y ago
I disagree. At a certain point, things get very serious. When companies become successful and deal in billings in the 100's millions or billions, it's time to get a more experienced team. It's the ethical thing to do; it's a fiduciary duty of leadership to do so. He may be stepping aside because what's required to lead an enterprise company is not something he's capable of or interested in doing; it's a radically different thing then created a company from nothing. I think Shykes stepping aside is an extremely professional move and a hallmark of great leadership. Honestly, it's not something you see often in tech; many founders hold on for dear life and companies suffer greatly because of it.
mmaunder 9y ago
Agreed. And leading and inspiring a team is done by having a burning vision, communicating it to the team, getting them excited and making it their vision too and doing that on a daily basis. Day to day operations can be handled by COO, CFO, CMO, VP and other lieutenant roles. Why not hire Steve Singh as chief operating officer? Why not even lower down the totem pole? Is it because there's a fear that 'talent' of that quality may not take the job without a CEO title? Money can solve that. If there's an ego in the way, perhaps that's a problem. I've scaled our business from 2 people to 10 to 20 and now to 30 with high 8 figures in revenue. I'm quite comfortable that I can scale it to any number. The reason is that I am very comfortable hiring people that are smarter than me and putting them in leadership roles in the organization, stepping back and trusting them and heavily relying on them to do an excellent job. Stepping back and trusting takes an incredible leap of faith as a founder. You also need to be comfortable asking Fortune 5000 execs to work for you in a VP or C suite role. You also need to be able to pay them. If you can do those three things, you can assemble a team of lieutenants that will run their business divisions, provide you excellent visibility in all areas without over communicating and you will be able to scale into infinity as they replicate your strategy for scaling by hiring trusted lieutenants. It also helps if you know how little you actually know, can be completely honest about that with your exec team and ask them for help and input and trust them to give you what you need. I haven't experienced this, but it seems to me that firing founder CEOs and 'hiring a mature CEO' is conventional VC wisdom and it's based on a pattern they've seen work. e.g. Cisco. Once you raise big VC, I'm not sure that as a young founder you actually have a say unless you specifically build controls into your funding agreements. In FB, Zuck controls about 60% of the voting rights. He's 33. You have to ask yourself if he'd be CEO if the voting structure was different.
mnutt 9y ago
It seems that a lot of people on HN have a visceral negative reaction to founders stepping aside in favor of bringing professional management. Ousters aside, I wonder if it has to do with value creation versus value capture phases of the company, with people here being generally more interested in creating value than capturing it?

fleitz 9y ago

That’s incredibly myopic, there are lots of successful businesses that run because everything runs smoothly. What is the burning vision of Coca Cola? I’m pretty sure their business is successful because they sell the same product year after year with little to no change.

chrisvalleybay 9y ago

That's a pretty harsh generalisation. Edit: I should probably expand on that. Yes, in some cases keeping the founder as a CEO can be important for the morale of the team, but sometimes bringing in outside experience (the so called 'adult supervision') can be very important for a company. Eric Schmidt did a great job doing this for Google, before he assumed the role as chairman, leaving the CEO post for the founders at a later point.

c_r_w 9y ago

Whereas effective leaders are required to manage not only the day-to-day, but turning the core vision into an actual business plan that can pay employees rather than just burn VC money. My experience is the opposite; I've worked at two companies where the founder has returned to be CEO and in both cases they were highly ineffective.

eruditepanda 9y ago
I'd concur, the generalization of one being better than the other just doesn't fit. I've worked for companies that fit into both situations and it really comes down to whether the founder had the skills to begin with or whether they were willing to admit that they needed help on the day-to-day operations & maintenance, etc.
- c_r_w 9y ago
  Agreed. There is this concept of the wheel of energy, people tend to be good at different parts of the wheel: Starting Growing Containing Completing Founder types tend to be amazing at Starting, and sometimes at Growing. But at a certain point, you need to bring in the people who are better at the Growing/Containing phase. IMHO most Founder/CEOs don't have this distinction and can't see how what makes them terrific at the beginning hobbles the company as it tries to become a stable business.

bsaul 9y ago

i guess it's a cycle. When a company needs to innovate to build its first iterations then the founder role is crucial, but then come the time of finding the best way to make money out of the product, and have a sustainable and well organized company. In that moment, (technical) founders find themselves a bit bored. The ideal would be for them to get back to pure R&D for a year or two, to discover more paths for the company's future. The problem is that carriers in a company only go one direction. Once you are a C-something the only way left is out.

mmsimanga 9y ago
Agreed. Most activities in big companies are not even remotely related to the core technology or idea that brought the company into existence. As company grows, training departments grow to train new clients, technical writing teams grow to write documentation in different languages, technical teams grow to support the many different operating systems and markets, HR department grow to support the many people now working at the company and soon the effort required to coordinate all these people is more than the effort put into the original product. Some founders adapt to the changing needs of the company some don't like all the admin.

romanhn 9y ago

There is a reason why most startups don't go big - burning vision is not even close to being the right formula for success. Running a company of 10 people is VERY different from running a company of 100, which is VERY VERY different from running a company of 1000. Just like precious few individual contributors are comfortable with and able to contribute meaningfully in this wide range of environments, it doesn't make sense that a CEO is somehow exempted from that. The day-to-day operations are in fact incredibly different and present unique challenges. Note: I'm not saying this is what's happening here, just responding to the general comment above.

maerF0x0 9y ago
> Running a company of 10 people is VERY different from running a company of 100, which is VERY VERY different from running a company of 1000 IMO thats a classist lie that keeps people in their place. Any reasonably smart CEO can learn his way from 10 - 10000. Yes, (s)he may not be capable of 10k on day one, but they can grow along the way.
- atonse 9y ago
  Ehh I'm not so sure. There are different levels of abstractions involved in a 10 person company vs a 1000 person company. At the 5000 employee level, you are probably dealing with a ton of abstractions that were filtered multiple levels up.
  - weego 9y ago
    Let's all admit that we don't know because we're not/have not been in that scenario rather than picking arbitrary milestones and making guesses
- fizx 9y ago
  It's probably a little bit like a Cessna pilot trying to land a 747. I'm sure the plane can almost land itself, and ground control can talk you through it, but wouldn't you rather have someone who has done it before?

codingdave 9y ago

CEOs that succeed also have the correct burning vision. CEOs with a flawed vision often drive companies into the ground. I'm not talking about anyone specific here, just noting that many founding CEOs hold too tightly to their own personal vision rather than adjusting it to the market's demands to create a solid direction.

moftz 9y ago

You can't have explosive growth forever. At some point, you look around and realize that you don't need to worry about coming up with big ideas anymore and that what you've developed is mature enough to be a real revenue generator. Hykes clearly isn't the kind of person that likes to sit back so he's off to find a replacement, the guy that will be really good at streamlining what Docker does (and ensuring that the stock does well).

geofft 9y ago

> Companies that succeed are driven by burning vision, not by day-to-day operation people. What is the evidence for this? We can throw anecdotes like Apple on one side and Unilever on the other, sure, but is there any study saying e.g. "Of these 100 promising companies founded in 1990, x% of the founder-led ones were successful by 2010 whereas y% of the outside-CEO-led ones were?" Making a bold claim like "Companies that succeed have X cool-sounding behavior" is the realm of business books in airport bookstores. It would be nice to take a more data-driven approach.

ineedasername 9y ago
Also, the vast majority of startups do not lack for drive & vision, but most will fail. Vision may be necessary for a new company, but it certainly isn't sufficient.
LaGrange 9y ago
> What is the evidence for this? GP's burning vision, of course. I once had my vision burn so hard my landlord charged me for the floor paneling.
kornish 9y ago
Noam Wasserman (Harvard, USC) studies exactly this in a paper called "Rich vs King". As you can guess from the name, the conclusion is that bringing in outside generally management maximizes the expected value of equity. https://hbr.org/2008/02/the-founders-dilemma https://hbr.org/2008/02/the-founders-dilemma
- geofft 9y ago
  Thanks! One thing the article brings up is that "success" may not be synonymous with "financial success". If you have a specific burning vision for a thing that should exist in the world, it might not be the most profitable thing, and the founder staying on is probably a good way for exactly that product to exist - but an outside CEO might choose to compromise the product vision and significantly expand the potential market in doing so.

zaidf 9y ago

Companies that succeed are driven by burning vision, not by day-to-day operation people. They are not mutually exclusive; thinking that they are is a recipe for failure.

manigandham 9y ago

Both are critical. You have a goal and then you make progress. Neither is enough on its own.

zer00eyz 9y ago

Lets step away from the "company" aspect of it, because docker is also a project. If this post were by someone named Linus, or Guido, (or Jobs) or any number of other names I can think of - people would be freaking out. Yet the reaction so far is one thatI can only describe as "meh" - there wasn't a scandal (uber) there isn't a failure (intel) and people mostly (with exception) like the product. I wonder what the future holds for docker after this change. Also that art at the end, looks great but all I could think of was "fail whale" when looking at it (and not docker).

ineedasername 9y ago

The people that have both are outliers, but massively successful: Bezos, Jobs, etc. But that just shows the importance of having both types of leadership in a company, because the type of drive that grows an innovative company isn't the same as what keeps them in the top spot. This isn't a simple binary variable, just about every company has had or will have to find their balance on this. It may not be glamorous, but no matter how innovative or successful, someone (many people really) have to have an eye on day to day operations. A CEO should have vision, yes, but their job isn't just to have vision, it's to share that vision with the people under them, the day to day people that have to be in place, and will make the best day-to-day decisions only if they understand and share that vision.

jwildeboer 9y ago

Disagree. Counter example: Red Hat (disclaimer: I’m at Red Hat since almost 13 years). Founded by realistic visionaries (Bob Young and Mark Ewing). Bob was smart enough to bring in Matthew Szulik, who gave Red Hat structure and growth. And Matthew was smart enough to hand over to Jim Whitehurst. Red Hat is nowadays a smooth running company with 64 quarters of growth, with a portfolio that goes far beyond Linux. Execution is key. Having passionate employees a must.

Godel_unicode 9y ago
This is a good point. I think that a company needs burning passion at the team level in order to succeed, and calm reasoning heads handling the day to day to allow those passionate people to continue to do what they do.
vram22 9y ago
Bob Young founded Lulu.com, the ebooks and print books company, before Red Hat, IIRC. That was an early pioneering ebook and self-publishing company startup, I think.
- ghaff 9y ago
  Lulu.com was founded in 2002 after Bob Young left Red Hat.
  - vram22 9y ago
    Okay, I got that the other way around, thanks. Seems there was quite a gap between the two foundings, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lulu.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lulu.com
    - vram22 9y ago
      Looked up Bob Young on Google: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Young_(businessman) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Young_(businessman) and it seems he also was a co-founder of Linux Journal! Didn't know. Cool. His work has had quite an impact.

paulie_a 9y ago

I vehemently disagree, burning vision is wasted when you don't focus on the day to day. The day to day is what actually leads to revenue and hopefully actual profits. You can only burn vc money for so long until you actually have to show some sort of return.

Godel_unicode 9y ago

Counterpoint: Google brought in an established CEO to get the nuts and bolts of being a big company working correctly. I would say that Google is pretty successful.

neolefty 9y ago
I think that also points out the value of engaged investors and board. I don't know the details but I am under the impression they really facilitated that process -- recommended the idea, found candidates including Eric Schmidt, did the whole thing without disempowering Larry & Sergei, etc.
mywittyname 9y ago
Because the Google founders were PhDs with more technical interest than business. Plenty of companies are founded by people who aspire to lead large companies.

justicezyx 9y ago

At least for fundamental things like containers, Docker's current founder definitely is not a match for many other people in technical capability and experiences. The later part is more severe.

sah2ed 9y ago

It called facing reality and realizing that certain phases in a company's growth require having someone with real world experience at the helm. It's the reason why John Doerr brought in Eric Schmidt as Google's CEO for adult supervision. Good investors, in addition to bringing cash, also bring with them accumulated experience from previous rodeos, which means they'll be able to recommend a few qualified hires for the up hill battle ahead, if it is clear the founder is lacking in requisite experience.

milesdyson_phd 9y ago

Ideas get you to the 50 yard line, execution gets you into the end zone.

mizzao 9y ago
More like the 21 yard line?

zupreme 9y ago

I disagree. This is EXACTLY why roles such as "Chief Operating Officer" and "Director of Operations" exist. You don't make your company succeed by giving up control. You hire people you do control who have the skills you lack.

ghaff 9y ago
And those skills may include taking the company in directions that you may not agree with. What then?
- dcole2929 9y ago
  You have to be smart enough, and humble enough to recognize when someone else's vision is what your company needs at the moment. I'd imagine that a good CEO would be able to both simultaneously provide the direction of a company while also accepting input, on how to actually get there. Navigation, and steering are two different things
WJW 9y ago
What if the skill the founder lacks is in leadership or vision? People like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg who can code AND lead are the absolute minority. I know more than a few founders who, while charismatic, absolutely do not have the temperament or skills to grow the business beyond 50 or people.
goatherders 9y ago
>> you dont make your company succeed by giving up control. Of course you do. Every time a new hire is made the founder gives up some control. The secretary now chooses the paper for the copy machine. The sales guy now enunciates the detail of the offering to the prospect. The engineer codes in her specific way. Growing a company is ALL about giving up control in exchange for accelerated growth of the business.
PeterisP 9y ago
That's exactly what is being done - the founder stays on the board as a shareholder and controls the decisions on overall direction, goals and the vision of the company, and hires an executive that has the skills required for management of a large company and will execute these goals.

reeeprgenx 9y ago

"Companies that succeed are driven by burning vision" lol. /not even close.

goatherders 9y ago
Not sure why this was downvoted. It's a good (and correct) point.
- croshan 9y ago
  It doesn't really add much to the conversation, and it comes off as rude.

debt 9y ago

I disagree. At a certain point, things get very serious. When companies become successful and deal in billings in the 100's millions or billions, it's time to get a more experienced team. It's the ethical thing to do; it's a fiduciary duty of leadership to do so. He may be stepping aside because what's required to lead an enterprise company is not something he's capable of or interested in doing; it's a radically different thing then created a company from nothing. I think Shykes stepping aside is an extremely professional move and a hallmark of great leadership. Honestly, it's not something you see often in tech; many founders hold on for dear life and companies suffer greatly because of it.

mmaunder 9y ago

Agreed. And leading and inspiring a team is done by having a burning vision, communicating it to the team, getting them excited and making it their vision too and doing that on a daily basis. Day to day operations can be handled by COO, CFO, CMO, VP and other lieutenant roles. Why not hire Steve Singh as chief operating officer? Why not even lower down the totem pole? Is it because there's a fear that 'talent' of that quality may not take the job without a CEO title? Money can solve that. If there's an ego in the way, perhaps that's a problem. I've scaled our business from 2 people to 10 to 20 and now to 30 with high 8 figures in revenue. I'm quite comfortable that I can scale it to any number. The reason is that I am very comfortable hiring people that are smarter than me and putting them in leadership roles in the organization, stepping back and trusting them and heavily relying on them to do an excellent job. Stepping back and trusting takes an incredible leap of faith as a founder. You also need to be comfortable asking Fortune 5000 execs to work for you in a VP or C suite role. You also need to be able to pay them. If you can do those three things, you can assemble a team of lieutenants that will run their business divisions, provide you excellent visibility in all areas without over communicating and you will be able to scale into infinity as they replicate your strategy for scaling by hiring trusted lieutenants. It also helps if you know how little you actually know, can be completely honest about that with your exec team and ask them for help and input and trust them to give you what you need. I haven't experienced this, but it seems to me that firing founder CEOs and 'hiring a mature CEO' is conventional VC wisdom and it's based on a pattern they've seen work. e.g. Cisco. Once you raise big VC, I'm not sure that as a young founder you actually have a say unless you specifically build controls into your funding agreements. In FB, Zuck controls about 60% of the voting rights. He's 33. You have to ask yourself if he'd be CEO if the voting structure was different.

mnutt 9y ago

It seems that a lot of people on HN have a visceral negative reaction to founders stepping aside in favor of bringing professional management. Ousters aside, I wonder if it has to do with value creation versus value capture phases of the company, with people here being generally more interested in creating value than capturing it?