4 ms·

I don't really think this is fair, but I can see why it can come across that way. I wouldn't step down as CEO to keep a team together that did not want to be to

I don't really think this is fair, but I can see why it can come across that way. I wouldn't step down as CEO to keep a team together that did not want to be together. This is not to be confused with being unable to step aside for someone who is more suited for the position. That wasn't what was going on here. I placed a great deal of trust in my team for nearly a year and some of that came back to bite me. Yes I did list a lot of flaws, but they were not flaws that everyone had in common, they were the things that stood out to me as being problematic across the length of the venture and, well, I thought I mentioned a lot of things I thought I should do differently. But I am open to hearing more.

tptacek 18y ago
"I wouldn't step down as CEO to keep a team together that did not want to be together". You use this word "CEO" as if it means something. It doesn't. In a three-person (or two-person, by the time this particular piece of drama came to a head) company, there is a team, and there are players, and if the team is running well there's a team lead --- who's there because the team believes they'll function better with a leader. If the team wants to sound "all grown up", they'll call the leader a "CEO". My team still doesn't call Dave the CEO. Using the word "CEO" in this situation is a "tell". Think about what you're saying.
figured 18y ago
Honestly, it seems like you treated "your team" more like employees than co-founders. I think this was your critical mistake.
- davidw 18y ago
  I can see it being problematic that he was the only one doing it full time. That creates a sense of imbalance.
  - tptacek 18y ago
    Weigh that against the fact that other people put actual money in; it seems like everyone had skin in the game.
    - swivelmaster 18y ago
      Time is your most valuable resource, so in that respect... if he was working 2x more than anyone else on the team and they were questioning his lack of commitment... that's just weird.
      - tptacek 18y ago
        There's also something to be said for the difference between face time and productive time.
Prrometheus 18y ago
>This is not to be confused with being unable to step aside for someone who is more suited for the position. How was the other person not more suited for the position? The company couldn't survive under you, it might have under him. Do you care more about being in charge or having a successful business? Can you picture yourself working in a successful startup where you are not the CEO?

tptacek 18y ago

"I wouldn't step down as CEO to keep a team together that did not want to be together". You use this word "CEO" as if it means something. It doesn't. In a three-person (or two-person, by the time this particular piece of drama came to a head) company, there is a team, and there are players, and if the team is running well there's a team lead --- who's there because the team believes they'll function better with a leader. If the team wants to sound "all grown up", they'll call the leader a "CEO". My team still doesn't call Dave the CEO. Using the word "CEO" in this situation is a "tell". Think about what you're saying.

figured 18y ago

Honestly, it seems like you treated "your team" more like employees than co-founders. I think this was your critical mistake.

davidw 18y ago
I can see it being problematic that he was the only one doing it full time. That creates a sense of imbalance.
- tptacek 18y ago
  Weigh that against the fact that other people put actual money in; it seems like everyone had skin in the game.
  - swivelmaster 18y ago
    Time is your most valuable resource, so in that respect... if he was working 2x more than anyone else on the team and they were questioning his lack of commitment... that's just weird.
    - tptacek 18y ago
      There's also something to be said for the difference between face time and productive time.

Prrometheus 18y ago

>This is not to be confused with being unable to step aside for someone who is more suited for the position. How was the other person not more suited for the position? The company couldn't survive under you, it might have under him. Do you care more about being in charge or having a successful business? Can you picture yourself working in a successful startup where you are not the CEO?