5 ms·

You’re forgetting that companies need both Visionary AND Execution focused leaders at the very top. I’m an execution through and through guy, but I learned ear

You’re forgetting that companies need both Visionary AND Execution focused leaders at the very top. I’m an execution through and through guy, but I learned early on that my co-founder’s ideal traits are the opposite of mine, and that’s what you’re seeing here. What’s being described is a classic Visionary - spontaneous, jumps around and can be distracting, yes - but crucially, is also an amazing innovator and motivator of people. In a successful startup, you need both Visionaries and Execution people. I recommend Rocket Fuel - https://www.amazon.com/Rocket-Fuel-Essential-Combination-Business/dp/1942952317 https://www.amazon.com/Rocket-Fuel-Essential-Combination-Bus...

danielvaughn 3y ago
I was founding engineer ("CTO") of a startup a couple years ago, and I completely agree. We had the CEO who had domain expertise in our market, but who had never ran a tech company and was not technically proficient. I on the other hand was technically proficient, but I also never ran a tech company. This lack of execution expertise doomed us; we really needed a strong operations role. We made good progress on the product itself, but hit a wall when it came time to ask for money from investors.
- icedchai 3y ago
  I was in a similar position, working as CTO under a first time CEO where we built a small team, product, got some limited traction, but follow-on execution completely failed. It was incredibly hard. It depresses me to this day, thinking about where it all went wrong. I probably won't ever do it again.
  - danielvaughn 3y ago
    It’s very difficult. I spent almost 2 years without income, supporting myself with my savings. It’s a tough pill to swallow.
lapcat 3y ago
> You’re forgetting that companies need both Visionary AND Execution focused leaders at the very top. I'm not forgetting. And I'm not claiming that this promotion was a mistake. I am raising questions about the narrative that the author is telling/selling. Consider how you'll likely not see such a long-winded post from company founders explaining in detail why they chose themselves for their own jobs. They founded a company because they wanted to, and they didn't care whether they had exactly the right experience and qualifications. The narrative is about slowly making your way up the corporate ranks, gaining experience, working hard, achieving qualifications, and deserving your promotion. The author feels that this kind of story is encouraging, uplifting, that is shows you too can make it to the top, but I actually think it's kind of a disservice, an attitude that can hold people back. The company founders suddenly made it to the top at the very beginning without any of that, without "deserving" anything. If you think you have to "earn" your position, you've already bought into the myth of the hierarchy. The best reason to be ambitious is the realization that the people above you are just as flawed as you are. If anything, competence is often overlooked in promotions. For example, from the article: "I didn’t get promoted right then (it wasn’t the right time) but we also stopped looking for an external hire." Why wasn't it the right time?
- epups 3y ago
  Not sure what point you're trying to make here. You can go and start your company any time, sure, but I would much rather be a VP in a medium sized startup than a founder. And to get to VP, even in a small organisation, you certainly need competence.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > And to get to VP, even in a small organisation, you certainly need competence. I don't know if I agree with that. Anyway, competence comes at various levels.
    - epups 3y ago
      If you open a company right now, what would be your criteria for promotion?
nickdothutton 3y ago
I'd second this, if it helps... think of the visionary as the "spiritual leader". This framing echoes many political and civic movements. The execution specialist is often necessarily a very different person to the spiritual/visionary leader. In the company I got my start in many years ago, it quickly became essential that the founding CEO move to spiritual leader, while we found an execution guy from outside to make the machine run smoothly. Couldn't have done it without both of them.
Aurornis 3y ago
> What’s being described is a classic Visionary - spontaneous, jumps around and can be distracting, yes - but crucially, is also an amazing innovator and motivator of people. The description reads more like someone who is simply high energy and brings a lot of enthusiasm and positivity. I don't see much suggestion that the person is necessarily very Visionary: > [company founder] has a more intuitive, spontaneous style, often shines brightest in a crisis, is allergic to checklists There is a lot of value in having leaders who are positive, high energy, and can motivate teams. I've come across a few leaders who had boundless energy, enthusiasm, and enough charisma to lead teams into any effort. However, the ones without the right amount of execution ability ultimately just led us to slosh around doing a lot of half-useless work in a high-energy manner. These days I'm more cautious when I meet someone with abnormally high charisma and energy levels. I probe more for knowledge and experience in executing. Many of the highest charisma leaders I've come across haven't had the abilities to back it up, but they've used their charisma and charm to work their way into the right companies and right meeting rooms at the right time to become associated with success. Of the successful startups I've worked at, I can think of several people who were charismatic, confident, high-energy, but didn't really contribute to execution. Even worse, some of them detracted from progress as they used their charisma to redirect efforts in self-serving ways, or spent their time pushing podcasts, building social media profiles, and attending conferences instead of working for the company.

danielvaughn 3y ago

I was founding engineer ("CTO") of a startup a couple years ago, and I completely agree. We had the CEO who had domain expertise in our market, but who had never ran a tech company and was not technically proficient. I on the other hand was technically proficient, but I also never ran a tech company. This lack of execution expertise doomed us; we really needed a strong operations role. We made good progress on the product itself, but hit a wall when it came time to ask for money from investors.

icedchai 3y ago
I was in a similar position, working as CTO under a first time CEO where we built a small team, product, got some limited traction, but follow-on execution completely failed. It was incredibly hard. It depresses me to this day, thinking about where it all went wrong. I probably won't ever do it again.
- danielvaughn 3y ago
  It’s very difficult. I spent almost 2 years without income, supporting myself with my savings. It’s a tough pill to swallow.

lapcat 3y ago

> You’re forgetting that companies need both Visionary AND Execution focused leaders at the very top. I'm not forgetting. And I'm not claiming that this promotion was a mistake. I am raising questions about the narrative that the author is telling/selling. Consider how you'll likely not see such a long-winded post from company founders explaining in detail why they chose themselves for their own jobs. They founded a company because they wanted to, and they didn't care whether they had exactly the right experience and qualifications. The narrative is about slowly making your way up the corporate ranks, gaining experience, working hard, achieving qualifications, and deserving your promotion. The author feels that this kind of story is encouraging, uplifting, that is shows you too can make it to the top, but I actually think it's kind of a disservice, an attitude that can hold people back. The company founders suddenly made it to the top at the very beginning without any of that, without "deserving" anything. If you think you have to "earn" your position, you've already bought into the myth of the hierarchy. The best reason to be ambitious is the realization that the people above you are just as flawed as you are. If anything, competence is often overlooked in promotions. For example, from the article: "I didn’t get promoted right then (it wasn’t the right time) but we also stopped looking for an external hire." Why wasn't it the right time?

epups 3y ago
Not sure what point you're trying to make here. You can go and start your company any time, sure, but I would much rather be a VP in a medium sized startup than a founder. And to get to VP, even in a small organisation, you certainly need competence.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > And to get to VP, even in a small organisation, you certainly need competence. I don't know if I agree with that. Anyway, competence comes at various levels.
  - epups 3y ago
    If you open a company right now, what would be your criteria for promotion?

nickdothutton 3y ago

I'd second this, if it helps... think of the visionary as the "spiritual leader". This framing echoes many political and civic movements. The execution specialist is often necessarily a very different person to the spiritual/visionary leader. In the company I got my start in many years ago, it quickly became essential that the founding CEO move to spiritual leader, while we found an execution guy from outside to make the machine run smoothly. Couldn't have done it without both of them.

Aurornis 3y ago

> What’s being described is a classic Visionary - spontaneous, jumps around and can be distracting, yes - but crucially, is also an amazing innovator and motivator of people. The description reads more like someone who is simply high energy and brings a lot of enthusiasm and positivity. I don't see much suggestion that the person is necessarily very Visionary: > [company founder] has a more intuitive, spontaneous style, often shines brightest in a crisis, is allergic to checklists There is a lot of value in having leaders who are positive, high energy, and can motivate teams. I've come across a few leaders who had boundless energy, enthusiasm, and enough charisma to lead teams into any effort. However, the ones without the right amount of execution ability ultimately just led us to slosh around doing a lot of half-useless work in a high-energy manner. These days I'm more cautious when I meet someone with abnormally high charisma and energy levels. I probe more for knowledge and experience in executing. Many of the highest charisma leaders I've come across haven't had the abilities to back it up, but they've used their charisma and charm to work their way into the right companies and right meeting rooms at the right time to become associated with success. Of the successful startups I've worked at, I can think of several people who were charismatic, confident, high-energy, but didn't really contribute to execution. Even worse, some of them detracted from progress as they used their charisma to redirect efforts in self-serving ways, or spent their time pushing podcasts, building social media profiles, and attending conferences instead of working for the company.