[jyu]

The article suggests that the VC is in an infallible position and the CEO maybe the one who is failing at his job. A common trope is founders getting fired, stepping aside for some socially acceptable reason, which brings their fantastic journey to an end.

Here's a fun thought exercise: When is the VC the problem and not the founders? How do you even go about firing a VC? Have you ever read VC's "fantastic journey" blog post?

[Macha]

The VC is rarely as visible to customers/partners as the CEO which means that they can quietly sell off their holdings (I've heard of cases on HN where it goes to the founder for a "just take this off our portfolio" price when it's clear it's shaping up to be a lifestyle business) and don't need to publicly provide a introduction to the new face or reassurances about the business the way an outgoing CEO does.

[beambot]

While Fred Wilson might be a VC, he's speaking in his capacity as a board member. Boards are critical to corporate governance, and one of their biggest responsibilities on behalf of all shareholders is to hold the CEO & management team accountable.

[BryanBeshore]

FIFY: While Fred Wilson might be a VC, he’s speaking in his capacity as an American citizen. Voting is critical to democracies, and one of your biggest responsibilities on behalf of all Americans is to hold government officials accountable.

* Referencing Fred’s own post/replies on twitter https://twitter.com/fredwilson/status/1320706427091111936?s=...

[ci5er]

Fred may have this opinion, but I assure you that he is speaking from a position of corporate governance in this article.

[setgree]

Yes, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24793170 goes into great detail about removing a problem person from the board. (From the CEO of CircleUp.)

[Benjammer]

>The article suggests that the VC is in an infallible position

I'm not sure where you get this angle from? I read it as several points of evidence that the author uses to identify a bad CEO, that don't seem to have much to do with the VC at all, let alone comparing the VC as superior in any way against the CEO directly.

From the article:

>the CEO has failed to manage numerous important challenges, when the senior leadership team has been a revolving door, when the CEO has messed up important relationships with customers, employees, and other important stakeholders, when the organization has become toxic as a result of the CEO’s abrasive personality

[jyu]

Why is the CEO failing? The answer is written from the perspective of the VC. Maybe it's a bad founder-CEO. Could there be another side to this story? Let's try and approach this from the CEO's perspective with an open mind.

CEO has failed to manage numerous important challenges... Why is the VC is fixated on X/Y/Z when I'm trying to corner a bigger piece of an expanding pie? The VC believed in my vision when they invested and are now micromanaging me as soon as I hit a couple speed bumps.

Senior leadership team has been a revolving door...Senior leadership is typically installed by the board majority holding VC. What happened to all the sweat equity built when this startup concept and industry was very uncertain and the company went from default: "dead" to default: "alive". All these MBA grads want is to slow down growth and clutter up the site with a ton of garbage ads.

CEO has messed up important relationships with customers, employees, and other important stakeholders, when the organization has become toxic as a result of the CEO’s abrasive personality.

Could you imagine dealing with egotistical (but correct) 20-something Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerburg making you gorge down humble pie as a white haired well credentialed VC? Would FAANGM be recognizable today if the founders got booted early and replaced with a highly credentialed buddy of the VC?

[foobiekr]

If one of your VCs goes rogue, you are probably going to face very, very serious problems depending on where you are in the business. Early on, simply put, a bad VC will kill the business.

[ci5er]

The VC, on the board, has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders: directly, his firm; the other shareholders, including the founders (!); and indirectly his LPs.

It is the board's responsibility to hire and fire executive management and as both a significant shareholder and board member, has the leverage to do so IF the other board members agree. It is almost never unilateral. Now - in the early-ish days of a company (say,pre-D series), the board is pretty small and pretty acquainted, so the guy who wants to fire you (the CEO) just places about 4 phone calls, and if everyone is on board, gets the ball rolling. Legally, it is a lot easier than it is with a public company or with someone with one of those weird split-stock-right things like Facebook.