"That’s it. She’s not expected to come up with strategy, " Did you even read the article? The #1 headline point was "coming up with strategy": here's the refe

"That’s it. She’s not expected to come up with strategy, " Did you even read the article? The #1 headline point was "coming up with strategy": here's the reference: "1. A clear strategy is the key to execution When I assumed the CEO role, the organization had been struggling with a lack of strategic clarity. The company is in a market with both endless growth opportunities and nearly as many potential distractions if strategy is not clear and priorities are not set. Creating a true north star for the team was my top priority." 1/2 the articles was about this. So yes, her role 'should have been' to keep the lights on, and definitely not make consequential decisions as such, so why on earth is she doing it? Also - her comment about 'compassion vs. financial acumen' was essentially pointless in the context that 'financial acumen' is not necessarily that important about a startup either. This was possibly a shameful exercise in mismanagement. "I had no idea what I was doing, I read some pop-culture books on being a CEO, I was empathetic, and I laid down a company strategy based on industry buzzwords" Ridiculous. "Keeping the lights on" is what she should have done as a 'member of the board overseeing the company temporarily'. She should have worked with the remaining C-level team to set some priorities, pick some things to fix, and probably lean in with some financial concerns if there as an opportunity to do that. That's it.