3 ms·

Honestly, hiring a "head of growth" sounds like more trouble than it's worth. Massive incentive to bullshit you (and a title that would attract this type of pe

Honestly, hiring a "head of growth" sounds like more trouble than it's worth. Massive incentive to bullshit you (and a title that would attract this type of person), difficult to measure success/value and even if they do actually grow your business you've taken all intuitive understanding of how your business works and embodied it within someone who can leave whenever they feel like it. Unless the founder plans to hit the eject button within the short term, I don't see why you'd do this.

Puts 5y ago
Well let's be honest. For most startups the short-term eject button is the whole business plan.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  I understand it's the stereotype, but I really don't think it is the norm. So many founders care about what they create and to to extreme lengths to ensure that they can achieve their (not just financial) goals they had when setting up the company.
fuzzfactor 5y ago
>Honestly, hiring a "head of growth" sounds like more trouble than it's worth. Hence, the purpose of the article which is to sell you their services as part-time growth writer promotional consultants. >Massive incentive to bullshit You're not kidding, this is a significant component whether you can really deliver or not. I wouldn't do this unless I could deliver certain concrete results with outstanding upside to boot, but regardless there would be some need to BS your way in to begin with. Actually I would do this but I would have to divert effort into interfacing with the BS in addition to the usual workarounds. Ugh. If it's actually impossible to bring a completely BS-free promise/delivery cycle every time, realistically more visible progress could probably be made in orgs where the existent BS is already huge by comparison. >they do actually grow your business >you've taken all intuitive understanding of how your business works and embodied it within someone who can leave whenever they feel like it. >Unless the founder plans to hit the eject button A good plan would be to establish significant growth momentum early on, then try to increase that if possible, in a way that whatever momentum achieved will remain after that growth instigator may no longer be in position. Either way, with that in mind I think the right idea for me would be to dive in full-time and make maximum progress every day on the biggest low-hanging fruit, then move on to the next location. I would be leaving when I felt like it but that would be with major milestones left in place and the feeling of a project completed by all. Plus OTOH from a corporate point of view when the time comes they should be able to change heads of growth more easily than other executives when they feel like it, since different extreme-growth operators can have very different strategies. And of course there's that BS element which should dissipate not accrue. >the whole company is about growth. The entire team is responsible for growth. This is usually not implemented as thoroughly as it could be. >It's far better to invest in infrastructure and building muscle in the entire team around growth This is what a growth leader is supposed to have the resources and authority to do; build a stronger foundation so that striving to the next level can more realistically be achieved while everyone else is already busy maintaining the degree of success that has already been accomplished. >too much growth and not enough profit/endurance? Anybody can grow a company 500% a year if they're willing to lose a billion dollars I think of that more like "expansion". Growth as a result of increasing profits is in a different category.

Puts 5y ago

Well let's be honest. For most startups the short-term eject button is the whole business plan.

AussieWog93 5y ago
I understand it's the stereotype, but I really don't think it is the norm. So many founders care about what they create and to to extreme lengths to ensure that they can achieve their (not just financial) goals they had when setting up the company.

fuzzfactor 5y ago

>Honestly, hiring a "head of growth" sounds like more trouble than it's worth. Hence, the purpose of the article which is to sell you their services as part-time growth writer promotional consultants. >Massive incentive to bullshit You're not kidding, this is a significant component whether you can really deliver or not. I wouldn't do this unless I could deliver certain concrete results with outstanding upside to boot, but regardless there would be some need to BS your way in to begin with. Actually I would do this but I would have to divert effort into interfacing with the BS in addition to the usual workarounds. Ugh. If it's actually impossible to bring a completely BS-free promise/delivery cycle every time, realistically more visible progress could probably be made in orgs where the existent BS is already huge by comparison. >they do actually grow your business >you've taken all intuitive understanding of how your business works and embodied it within someone who can leave whenever they feel like it. >Unless the founder plans to hit the eject button A good plan would be to establish significant growth momentum early on, then try to increase that if possible, in a way that whatever momentum achieved will remain after that growth instigator may no longer be in position. Either way, with that in mind I think the right idea for me would be to dive in full-time and make maximum progress every day on the biggest low-hanging fruit, then move on to the next location. I would be leaving when I felt like it but that would be with major milestones left in place and the feeling of a project completed by all. Plus OTOH from a corporate point of view when the time comes they should be able to change heads of growth more easily than other executives when they feel like it, since different extreme-growth operators can have very different strategies. And of course there's that BS element which should dissipate not accrue. >the whole company is about growth. The entire team is responsible for growth. This is usually not implemented as thoroughly as it could be. >It's far better to invest in infrastructure and building muscle in the entire team around growth This is what a growth leader is supposed to have the resources and authority to do; build a stronger foundation so that striving to the next level can more realistically be achieved while everyone else is already busy maintaining the degree of success that has already been accomplished. >too much growth and not enough profit/endurance? Anybody can grow a company 500% a year if they're willing to lose a billion dollars I think of that more like "expansion". Growth as a result of increasing profits is in a different category.