3 ms·
I think this is a lovely article and it puts into words a lot of feelings that I've had about corporate North America. That being said, I don't understand poin
by waldohatesyou 7y ago
I think this is a lovely article and it puts into words a lot of feelings that I've had about corporate North America.
That being said, I don't understand point #7, exiting such that you get a significant payday always seems to involve either an IPO or an acquisition so what does it mean when he says "Maybe the new peak accomplishment for a founder should be successfully exiting their company in a way that sets it up for long-term success." when neither of those exit strategies do that?
- wpietri 7y agoThe author started Atomic Object, a consulting company that happens to be in my hometown, so I've kept track of it over the years. It has been going since 2001, and last year he stepped back from CEO and is now just chairman, with other employees now taking the lead. Their managing partner, Brittany Hunter, recently told me, "Atomic Object is 100% employee owned and will stay that way forever...our vision is to be a 100 year old company!" Another good example here is Bob's Red Mill. It was started in 1978 by, well, Bob. He recently sold the company to an employee ownership program, so it will eventually be all theirs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob%27s_Red_Mill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob%27s_Red_Mill This is definitely not the quick cash of a Google acquisition. But given how many things Google has destroyed by acquiring them, I think prioritizing quick cash is part of the problem.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ska 7y agoI don't think setting up for long term success is incompatible with an IPO, but the way the IPO market is structured could be making it harder. I'd also question whether or not "a significant payday" is a necessary goal to consider what you've done a success.