5 ms·

Love this quote. As a cynical counterpoint to all the apparent glamour to being a CEO of a small startup, especially one that has taken investor money, I came u

Love this quote. As a cynical counterpoint to all the apparent glamour to being a CEO of a small startup, especially one that has taken investor money, I came up with this expansion: CEO = Chief Enslaved Officer. Enslaved to your investor obviously. Enslaved to your customers. And even enslaved to your employees. This one may need some elaboration — the CEO constantly needs to manage their motivation through ups and downs and ensure they are productive, and be responsive to them.

d4rkp4ttern 4y ago
Actually I would improve this to: CEO = Cheap, Enslaved Officer. For obvious reasons — CEOs intentionally take very little if any pay.
- lasc4r 4y ago
  Yeah, no.
mandmandam 4y ago
I hope you're very careful about who you throw slavery metaphors around with. Anyone with not-too-distant relatives that were _owned_ by wealthy old white dudes may find the equating of CEOs with slavery an "I have no time for this person" level offense.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  This silly notion that there has only ever been a single form of slavery, and that there's no point in discussing any other than what occurred in America in a specific time period is so very harmful. I understand why the topic at large is a sensitive one, and more for some than others. That doesn't mean I'll be overly concerned with someone who responds to such an analogy with some variation of "I have no time for you".
  - afarrell 4y ago
    As someone who does have Black enslaved ancestors: Sure, we can discuss comparisons among transatlantic chattel slavery, the treatment of the helots, or the people trafficked south along the Volga. The problem with a CEO calling themselves a slave is that it pretends that someone who has made an active choice to start a company is a victim. As this article shows, a CEO can choose to walk away from their company without fear of violence or starvation. If I meet a CEO who labels themselves enslaved, that tells me they are unwilling to recognize their responsibility for their own choices. That mindset makes them unfit to hold the power of the leadership position they aspire to.
    - mise_en_place 4y ago
      Slave is a bit extreme, but servant leadership is what I think they were trying to get at.
      - d4rkp4ttern 4y ago
        Indeed. The OP was able to quit relatively easily because he had not yet taken investor money. Imagine trying to quit after taking their money. That is where the element of "servitude" comes in, which admittedly sounds extreme but makes a point.
        maxwell 4y ago
        Why couldn't they quit after taking the money?
        sangnoir 4y ago
        Does VC money come with a "CEO is not allowed to quit" clause? CEO's can quit anytime they want - only their preide or egos may prevent them.
    - zdragnar 4y ago
      You don't need to get into serfdom or other historical forms of slavery. As I mention in a sibling comment, there's multiple types of modern slavery that get discussed with varying degrees of frequency- labor slavery, sex slavery, and wage slavery. Wage slavery obviously is nothing like the others, but in the context of applying to a CEO, and given the frequency that it comes up (especially with the recurring universal basic income discussions), I think it is a much closer analogy that jumping straight back to the time before the american civil war.
dbingham 4y ago
You're missing a lot with that analogy - which is that of everyone involved in the veature, the CEO has the most power. They have the most knowledge of anyone and are the ultimate decision maker about the future of the venture. The CEO gets to make the choice: they can walk away any time, they can quit and they can shut things down. If they don't want to walk away, they get the strongest voice in decisions about what paths to take. They have all the knowledge they need about the venture on which to base those choices. They have the full picture, access to all the financial knowledge, the conversations with the investors, the data from the customers - everything. No one else in the venture has that. Even if others have the knowledge (in the case where the CEO operates with a rare level of extreme transparency) - they don't have the choices. That is not enslavement. With power, naturally, comes a lot of responsibility and that can feel heavy. Especially if you are ethical. But that is not enslavement. When you are enslaved, you have zero power.
- d4rkp4ttern 4y ago
  These are great points, I agree. Especially: >With power, naturally, comes a lot of responsibility and that can feel heavy. *Especially if you are ethical*. But that is not enslavement.

d4rkp4ttern 4y ago

Actually I would improve this to: CEO = Cheap, Enslaved Officer. For obvious reasons — CEOs intentionally take very little if any pay.

lasc4r 4y ago
Yeah, no.

mandmandam 4y ago

I hope you're very careful about who you throw slavery metaphors around with. Anyone with not-too-distant relatives that were _owned_ by wealthy old white dudes may find the equating of CEOs with slavery an "I have no time for this person" level offense.

zdragnar 4y ago
This silly notion that there has only ever been a single form of slavery, and that there's no point in discussing any other than what occurred in America in a specific time period is so very harmful. I understand why the topic at large is a sensitive one, and more for some than others. That doesn't mean I'll be overly concerned with someone who responds to such an analogy with some variation of "I have no time for you".
- afarrell 4y ago
  As someone who does have Black enslaved ancestors: Sure, we can discuss comparisons among transatlantic chattel slavery, the treatment of the helots, or the people trafficked south along the Volga. The problem with a CEO calling themselves a slave is that it pretends that someone who has made an active choice to start a company is a victim. As this article shows, a CEO can choose to walk away from their company without fear of violence or starvation. If I meet a CEO who labels themselves enslaved, that tells me they are unwilling to recognize their responsibility for their own choices. That mindset makes them unfit to hold the power of the leadership position they aspire to.
  - mise_en_place 4y ago
    Slave is a bit extreme, but servant leadership is what I think they were trying to get at.
    - d4rkp4ttern 4y ago
      Indeed. The OP was able to quit relatively easily because he had not yet taken investor money. Imagine trying to quit after taking their money. That is where the element of "servitude" comes in, which admittedly sounds extreme but makes a point.
      - maxwell 4y ago
        Why couldn't they quit after taking the money?
      - sangnoir 4y ago
        Does VC money come with a "CEO is not allowed to quit" clause? CEO's can quit anytime they want - only their preide or egos may prevent them.
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    You don't need to get into serfdom or other historical forms of slavery. As I mention in a sibling comment, there's multiple types of modern slavery that get discussed with varying degrees of frequency- labor slavery, sex slavery, and wage slavery. Wage slavery obviously is nothing like the others, but in the context of applying to a CEO, and given the frequency that it comes up (especially with the recurring universal basic income discussions), I think it is a much closer analogy that jumping straight back to the time before the american civil war.

dbingham 4y ago

You're missing a lot with that analogy - which is that of everyone involved in the veature, the CEO has the most power. They have the most knowledge of anyone and are the ultimate decision maker about the future of the venture. The CEO gets to make the choice: they can walk away any time, they can quit and they can shut things down. If they don't want to walk away, they get the strongest voice in decisions about what paths to take. They have all the knowledge they need about the venture on which to base those choices. They have the full picture, access to all the financial knowledge, the conversations with the investors, the data from the customers - everything. No one else in the venture has that. Even if others have the knowledge (in the case where the CEO operates with a rare level of extreme transparency) - they don't have the choices. That is not enslavement. With power, naturally, comes a lot of responsibility and that can feel heavy. Especially if you are ethical. But that is not enslavement. When you are enslaved, you have zero power.

d4rkp4ttern 4y ago
These are great points, I agree. Especially: >With power, naturally, comes a lot of responsibility and that can feel heavy. *Especially if you are ethical*. But that is not enslavement.