|
|
|
|
|
|
by Benjammer
2057 days ago
|
|
|
>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 |
|
|
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?