6 ms·

Even if you are totally self funded you still are accountable to your customers. For software companies this might not be so bad, but many small business owners

Even if you are totally self funded you still are accountable to your customers. For software companies this might not be so bad, but many small business owners will tell you they make extremely demanding bosses

sytse 6y ago
And you are accountable to your employees. Take the board I have for example. It is a relief to know that if I’m not longer the right person they will replace me. If you are bootstrapped with 1000+ employees a board might be something you want even if you don’t need to do it from an ownership perspective.
- sullyj3 6y ago
  I mean, at a certain point you're asking for ultimate power over everything and instead of attempting to become autonomous you find yourself attempting to become a supervillain
  - asddubs 6y ago
    the zuckerberg route
    - swagasaurus-rex 6y ago
      now that they're a publicly traded company, there's no way Zuckerberg could ever downsize Facebook into an honest company without the shareholders throwing a fit or suing the company.
- skrebbel 6y ago
  Ah! That's an angle I hadn't considered yet. Was there a concrete point at which you and your co-founder agreed to accept a minority stake and therefore give up absolute control? Was it a hard call to make or, already then, a relief because of the employee accountability?
  - jlokier 6y ago
    Having a board of directors over you doesn't always mean dropping to a minority ownership stake, or even giving up absolute control. The board of directors is legally responsible for running the company, in practice through major company decisions and scrutiny, so you can take some relief from that if you're a CxO doing what you think best "day to day" but not entirely sure you really know by yourself. Your board will get the legal blame if it goes seriously wrong and you've kept them sufficiently informed and involved in key decisions. But you can still have a majority ownership stake while appointing a board. In doing so, you keep ultimate control (as shareholders) but you won't often exercise it. Having ultimate control might change the social dynamics, but shareholders are not responsible for the company, the board of directors is and they should know it. Shareholders have the power to pass resolutions which effectively override directors, but most of the time they don't. Even if they do, it's up to the directors to figure out how to do what the shareholders want in a responsible and defensible way.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
fizixer 6y ago
I'm sorry customers are no boss.
- internet_user 6y ago
  customers are much easier to fire than a boss.
- deckard1 6y ago
  yeah, this has always been the dumbest of takes. When I have an issue at Amazon, is Bezos picking up the phone? Hell no. Even at places where the "customer is always right", all that means is the customer is the boss of the hourly wage slave. The CEO doesn't give a damn. And this results in so much ugly behavior here in America, where customers think they can throw drinks at fast food workers and have an adult tantrum. Anyone comparing a customer to a boss has had the luxury of never having a terrible boss.
internet_user 6y ago
you can fire SaaS customers. happens all the time.
maest 6y ago
> Even if you are totally self funded you still are accountable to your customers. Rentiers are an exception.
iainctduncan 6y ago
That is a totally different situation. Your customers can't just do whatever they want to you whenever they want. A board coalition with more than 50% of the shares can. They can say anytime they want, "we want out, your job is now to sell the company at the least possible loss". I have had this happen at a place where I worked.
- afarrell 6y ago
  It can if you only have one customer. The issue is monopsony.
  - iainctduncan 6y ago
    I'm replying to a comment that specifically said "customers" in plural. If you are in a situation with one customer, then really, you're not even talking about a company-and-customers relationship anymore, that's more like a consulting or contracting relationship and is a whole different ball of wax.
abraae 6y ago
> Even if you are totally self funded you still are accountable to your customers 2 main differences: 1) your customer's requirements are pure (usually) - "please add a frammel button so I can manage my widgets better". Your boss's requirements are less so - "please satisfy corporate by attending this compliance training". 2) you can fire any customers who you don't like. Not so your boss.
- edoceo 6y ago
  I have this for my small business. About 450 small "bosses" (clients). Because we don't answer to investors or board or anything we have what I call "alignment" with our clients. Despite 400+ opinions, the pull on the team is one way: client needs. My previous Companies has outside money, board, etc. That's three directions of pull. We've saved a lot of time that way on investor management but our growth was limited by cash-on-hand.
  - Rebelgecko 6y ago
    Have you ever needed to fire a client? Or been in a situation where you have to juggle client needs that were non-compatible?
    - edoceo 6y ago
      Fire client: less than 2%. But looks, losing only 2% to focus on the other 98. Well, you'll grow back. Not-Compatoble request is a bit harder. But, with like 10+ prior years in consultant I'm generally able to direct thing to a multiple compatible solution. Lots of research and customer development play for that.
- roenxi 6y ago
  > "please satisfy corporate by attending this compliance training". Compliance training is about legal requirement. A little extrapolation suggests it is going to be things that your bosses are only asking you to consider because they are legally mandated. If they were going to be considerations anyway, why mandate them? A lot of stupid things businesses do are to satisfy legal requirements that the business thinks is stupid. That one isn't the boss, it is the government.

sytse 6y ago

And you are accountable to your employees. Take the board I have for example. It is a relief to know that if I’m not longer the right person they will replace me. If you are bootstrapped with 1000+ employees a board might be something you want even if you don’t need to do it from an ownership perspective.

sullyj3 6y ago
I mean, at a certain point you're asking for ultimate power over everything and instead of attempting to become autonomous you find yourself attempting to become a supervillain
- asddubs 6y ago
  the zuckerberg route
  - swagasaurus-rex 6y ago
    now that they're a publicly traded company, there's no way Zuckerberg could ever downsize Facebook into an honest company without the shareholders throwing a fit or suing the company.
skrebbel 6y ago
Ah! That's an angle I hadn't considered yet. Was there a concrete point at which you and your co-founder agreed to accept a minority stake and therefore give up absolute control? Was it a hard call to make or, already then, a relief because of the employee accountability?
- jlokier 6y ago
  Having a board of directors over you doesn't always mean dropping to a minority ownership stake, or even giving up absolute control. The board of directors is legally responsible for running the company, in practice through major company decisions and scrutiny, so you can take some relief from that if you're a CxO doing what you think best "day to day" but not entirely sure you really know by yourself. Your board will get the legal blame if it goes seriously wrong and you've kept them sufficiently informed and involved in key decisions. But you can still have a majority ownership stake while appointing a board. In doing so, you keep ultimate control (as shareholders) but you won't often exercise it. Having ultimate control might change the social dynamics, but shareholders are not responsible for the company, the board of directors is and they should know it. Shareholders have the power to pass resolutions which effectively override directors, but most of the time they don't. Even if they do, it's up to the directors to figure out how to do what the shareholders want in a responsible and defensible way.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

fizixer 6y ago

I'm sorry customers are no boss.

internet_user 6y ago
customers are much easier to fire than a boss.
deckard1 6y ago
yeah, this has always been the dumbest of takes. When I have an issue at Amazon, is Bezos picking up the phone? Hell no. Even at places where the "customer is always right", all that means is the customer is the boss of the hourly wage slave. The CEO doesn't give a damn. And this results in so much ugly behavior here in America, where customers think they can throw drinks at fast food workers and have an adult tantrum. Anyone comparing a customer to a boss has had the luxury of never having a terrible boss.

internet_user 6y ago

you can fire SaaS customers. happens all the time.

maest 6y ago

> Even if you are totally self funded you still are accountable to your customers. Rentiers are an exception.

iainctduncan 6y ago

That is a totally different situation. Your customers can't just do whatever they want to you whenever they want. A board coalition with more than 50% of the shares can. They can say anytime they want, "we want out, your job is now to sell the company at the least possible loss". I have had this happen at a place where I worked.

afarrell 6y ago
It can if you only have one customer. The issue is monopsony.
- iainctduncan 6y ago
  I'm replying to a comment that specifically said "customers" in plural. If you are in a situation with one customer, then really, you're not even talking about a company-and-customers relationship anymore, that's more like a consulting or contracting relationship and is a whole different ball of wax.

abraae 6y ago

> Even if you are totally self funded you still are accountable to your customers 2 main differences: 1) your customer's requirements are pure (usually) - "please add a frammel button so I can manage my widgets better". Your boss's requirements are less so - "please satisfy corporate by attending this compliance training". 2) you can fire any customers who you don't like. Not so your boss.

edoceo 6y ago
I have this for my small business. About 450 small "bosses" (clients). Because we don't answer to investors or board or anything we have what I call "alignment" with our clients. Despite 400+ opinions, the pull on the team is one way: client needs. My previous Companies has outside money, board, etc. That's three directions of pull. We've saved a lot of time that way on investor management but our growth was limited by cash-on-hand.
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  Have you ever needed to fire a client? Or been in a situation where you have to juggle client needs that were non-compatible?
  - edoceo 6y ago
    Fire client: less than 2%. But looks, losing only 2% to focus on the other 98. Well, you'll grow back. Not-Compatoble request is a bit harder. But, with like 10+ prior years in consultant I'm generally able to direct thing to a multiple compatible solution. Lots of research and customer development play for that.
roenxi 6y ago
> "please satisfy corporate by attending this compliance training". Compliance training is about legal requirement. A little extrapolation suggests it is going to be things that your bosses are only asking you to consider because they are legally mandated. If they were going to be considerations anyway, why mandate them? A lot of stupid things businesses do are to satisfy legal requirements that the business thinks is stupid. That one isn't the boss, it is the government.