6 ms·

Here's something that rubs me the wrong way whenever I see it: a senior leader tells their story in a way that makes her current or former employer look like to

Here's something that rubs me the wrong way whenever I see it: a senior leader tells their story in a way that makes her current or former employer look like total idiots. If they meant to do that, fine - everyone has an axe to grind. But I am actually not sure they even realize they are doing it. How many times have we read an article that goes like this: "when I started at X, everything was a mess. I quickly turned things around by doing Y." Well the CEO who hired you at that company now looks like an idiot, and their board of directors is quickly taking notes. You took credit by making someone else look bad. Was that really necessary to get to the point you're trying to convey? The reality is that the CEO built something out of nothing, and prioritized certain tasks (eg: PMF) while deprioritizing others (eg: the company's expense policy). Eventually there was enough money in the bank for the company to afford a $300k/year hire, who then paid back the administrative debt. How you paid back that debt is orders of magnitude less heroic than how the CEO got to the position of being able to afford your salary in the first place. I really wonder if all those later-stage senior leaders could be that tone-deaf, or if they are throwing their CEOs under the bus on purpose.

Swizec 5y ago
Stories like this are an ad. They signal that the person is in the business of mess cleaning. You don’t feel bad for calling a sewage specialist when your septic tank breaks and there’s shit all over the lawn. And the septic tank person isn’t calling you out by saying “Wow there’s shit everywhere” You know there’s shit everywhere. That’s why you called a shit specialist.
sokoloff 5y ago
I don’t read this particular interview that way and even in cases where that signal is somewhat stronger, it’s still a mark of the CEO to identify a problem and hire an executive to fix it. That doesn’t make them look like an idiot at all in my book. If they left a significant problem to fester, that’s bad on them, but merely letting a significant issue develop and then addressing it is the on-going job of the CEO in many ways.
chevman 5y ago
Every company is screwed up. Every company is in the middle of some kind of evolution. You'll walk into situations you had no hand in creating. A big part of leadership is getting comfortable with this reality and understanding your role in helping move the ball forward.
- cleansingfire 5y ago
  And not to be a dick about it (unless absolutely necessary.)
- theshrike79 5y ago
  Good old Chesterton's Fence. Things are the way they are for a reason. Don't start changing everything without first understanding the reasons.
  - vosper 5y ago
    In the case of a fence someone built a thing in a particular place. That it was constructed and positioned intentionally is clear, and it’s simply the reason that is missing. In many orgs things are much more organic and random, and less intentional. Sometimes there is no fence.
  - throwaway98797 5y ago
    chesterton fence + lindy a fence that’s up for 30 years is more likely to have purpose than a 2 year old process set up in a growing company. generally, you can tear things down the younger they are.
- cirgue 5y ago
  > Every company is screwed up. Also, if they had the foresight to a) hire someone who could fix it and b) give them the run room to get it done, they’re ahead of the curve.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Spooky23 5y ago
I wouldn’t read this that way. Everyone gets visionary points. The CEO put a PR person in charge of HR, who cut bonuses and probably salaries ahead of a buyout to optimize the balance sheet.
mindvirus 5y ago
I don't necessarily agree with that take, but I do appreciate you sharing it. Companies are about change - much of the state of a company is a result of decisions that were made years prior, based on assumptions that aren't true anymore, or as you noted were reprioritized. The best run 100 person company will struggle as a 1000 person company with their old policies (and likewise, the best run 1000 person company's policies would crush a 100 person company).
estsauver 5y ago
The way I see it is not an indictment of that CEO: Their company survived to get a big mess going and then they hired a great person who solved it. That senior leader is describing a positive thing they did for the company, and describing how the CEO saw and then solved the right problem there.

Swizec 5y ago

Stories like this are an ad. They signal that the person is in the business of mess cleaning. You don’t feel bad for calling a sewage specialist when your septic tank breaks and there’s shit all over the lawn. And the septic tank person isn’t calling you out by saying “Wow there’s shit everywhere” You know there’s shit everywhere. That’s why you called a shit specialist.

sokoloff 5y ago

I don’t read this particular interview that way and even in cases where that signal is somewhat stronger, it’s still a mark of the CEO to identify a problem and hire an executive to fix it. That doesn’t make them look like an idiot at all in my book. If they left a significant problem to fester, that’s bad on them, but merely letting a significant issue develop and then addressing it is the on-going job of the CEO in many ways.

chevman 5y ago

Every company is screwed up. Every company is in the middle of some kind of evolution. You'll walk into situations you had no hand in creating. A big part of leadership is getting comfortable with this reality and understanding your role in helping move the ball forward.

cleansingfire 5y ago
And not to be a dick about it (unless absolutely necessary.)
theshrike79 5y ago
Good old Chesterton's Fence. Things are the way they are for a reason. Don't start changing everything without first understanding the reasons.
- vosper 5y ago
  In the case of a fence someone built a thing in a particular place. That it was constructed and positioned intentionally is clear, and it’s simply the reason that is missing. In many orgs things are much more organic and random, and less intentional. Sometimes there is no fence.
- throwaway98797 5y ago
  chesterton fence + lindy a fence that’s up for 30 years is more likely to have purpose than a 2 year old process set up in a growing company. generally, you can tear things down the younger they are.
cirgue 5y ago
> Every company is screwed up. Also, if they had the foresight to a) hire someone who could fix it and b) give them the run room to get it done, they’re ahead of the curve.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Spooky23 5y ago

I wouldn’t read this that way. Everyone gets visionary points. The CEO put a PR person in charge of HR, who cut bonuses and probably salaries ahead of a buyout to optimize the balance sheet.

mindvirus 5y ago

I don't necessarily agree with that take, but I do appreciate you sharing it. Companies are about change - much of the state of a company is a result of decisions that were made years prior, based on assumptions that aren't true anymore, or as you noted were reprioritized. The best run 100 person company will struggle as a 1000 person company with their old policies (and likewise, the best run 1000 person company's policies would crush a 100 person company).

estsauver 5y ago

The way I see it is not an indictment of that CEO: Their company survived to get a big mess going and then they hired a great person who solved it. That senior leader is describing a positive thing they did for the company, and describing how the CEO saw and then solved the right problem there.