[paulsutter]

Be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. You're probably doing a better job than you realize.

Try working with an executive coach - I work with Bryan Franklin. It's easier for you to develop leadership and management skills than it is for an outsider to really grok your business and share your vision.

Regarding the marketing role, be sure to get the right kind of marketer: https://medium.com/on-startups/1308a8f17137

Most of all: go slow on executive hires. There are a lot of "good talkers" out there. An empty seat is better than the wrong person.

[rosser]

An empty seat is better than the wrong person.

This. So very, very much this.

A bad hire at the executive level won't merely slow you down. You might lose ground, or possibly even crash and burn. I've seen it happen, and I'm sure I'm not the only person here who can say that.

[ryandrake]

"An empty seat is better than the wrong person."

Perhaps at the executive level, but I'm not sure I agree with this as a general hiring strategy. This mentality might go pretty far to explain why there are so many companies that claim they can't seem to find enough talent, while un(der)employment is still high.

Companies interview and interview, but are petrified of hiring "the wrong person" so they just keep on interviewing fruitlessly.

[ig1]

The wrong person doesn't just produce less value than the right person, they can actively create negative value.

They can do shoddy work that negatively impacts the ability of other employees to do work, they can cause reputational damage to the company if they're public-facing, they can create a toxic work culture that disincentives other employees.

[unclebucknasty]

This is a tough one. The thing is that for small companies, bad hires can be disastrous for any position key to the company's execution.

For instance, hiring a bad dev can be very costly. There is all of the time/work required to find, onboard and provide knowledge transfer, the real expense associated with the employee (i.e. compensation), and the fact that it generally takes time to determine it's not working. In that time the product hasn't moved forward as it could have and the company is out of a lot of time and money. And, frequently, it is the principals who are taking time away from building and running the company in order to try to hire/train. So, it's an even bigger disruption to the company.

For, say, a bootstraped company that has a small dev team (or the founders are the only dev) and not a LOT of money, this can be really painful or game ending. There is a real choice to be made between rolling the dice that you'll find good talent, or pushing forward at a slower pace, but without the disruption of hiring/training and without the additional expense.

[tankenmate]

It's the equivalent of old school investing; sit on the money until a really really good investment comes along; in the mean time you miss lots of good opportunities because you don't have a good framework for managing risk. Angel investing changed all that. Maybe there should be a greater move to angel employing; a small commitment up front until traction is proved.

[cpursley]

"An empty seat is better than the wrong person."

This is great advice that can apply to much in life.

[ArekDymalski]

Exactly. Your revenue is a proof of your entrepreneurial skills and that's an asset worth exploiting :) Before considering the new CEO stop for the moment and think about the challenges your company is about to face (both right now as well as in a following year). Then analyze what exactly do you need to cope with each of them. I bet sometimes you'll need just an encouraging advice, sometimes filling the competence gaps with some learning and probably most of the time it'll be coaching (your post below about decisions that seem to be bad suggests that you might be in that phase of your development). Sure, transitioning to the managerial role isn't a piece of cake but also it isn't that hard if you really commit yourself to the work on own develoopment. For the beginning, you may find this post http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/psychological-pitfalls-and-l... inspiring, as you're a designer too I guess. Good luck!

[regal]

Bringing in a "good talker" with exciting-sounding business ideas and great-looking credentials, then trusting him to run the show - often in ways against my better judgment - killed one of my businesses and nearly killed another. I had to wrest back control of that one, spent a lot of money on a legal fight against this individual, and slowly rebuild what was lost to save it.

In fact, if you're going to bring anyone in, bring in someone who tells you he needs time to get to know your business and work with you closely before he tries to start making any big changes. The guy who wants to jump into action on Day 1 is often someone who's going to have you quit dancing with the date who brought you to the dance to start chasing after bright shiny objects - many of which end up only being fool's gold - instead.

[benjaminlotan]

sound advice, thanks a bunch. i just threw the executive titles out there since i think that's where they would ideally lead to, and i don't exactly know how to speak to the people we are looking for to help us. I will read the medium post you linked now! if you are ever in the bay area, hit me up, id love to meet for coffee.

[jasonm23]

Just to add to the general chorus, what you really want are good consultants (or coaches, depending on your vernacular) for the specific problems you're facing. Crossing your fingers and letting a new CTO or CEO figure out the big picture for you is attractive, sure, but the risks are too high.

After you've filled in the blanks, you'll feel much more comfortable, and at that point make some hires to deal with those specific business areas, while still maintaining overall control. As others have said, you guys are doing something right or you wouldn't be in this position in the first place.

If I was over in SF, I'd love to help you out, but I'm based in Sydney.

Anyway, best of luck to you.

[GFischer]

I think Paul's advice is sound... get consultants/coaches, but keep the leadership !!

I don't have a company myself, but some people I know who do have had a lot of success linking up with the local university's Business programs (MBAs, or in my case a Master's in Management of Technology)... many professors have consultancy businesses on the side, and you can also draw on the students' abilities - for example, as a student, I got assigned to a 2M/year company, they gave us insider access and, with the teachers' guidance, we gave them a free consultancy.

I also recommend a Master's in Management (MOT or an MBA), running a company yourself you'll get a lot of value out of it. I see many California universities offer one (MOT or similar), maybe there's a graduate here on Hacker News who can recommend one.

[ibis]

Going with the "get good consultants/coaches" - if the coaches/consultants are good, and a good fit, then see if you can bring them on board.

Traditional "interview and put in place" hiring strategies are built around the needs of traditional large organisations with massive amounts of existing organisational momentum and plenty of time to recover from mistakes or retrain duff hires.

Small fast-moving companies don't have those advantages, and shouldn't hire that way. You're obviously innovative - don't forget to apply that creativity to your business processes.

[fludlight]

> You're probably doing a better job than you realize.

He is. Zero to $10mm is no small feat. He needs to hire a COO, not step down as CEO. The founder is almost always the best person to run the company.

> There are a lot of "good talkers" out there.

Beware the articulate incompetent ;-)

[xauronx]

Just finishing up Stranger in a strange land and I'm so surprised to see 'grok' on this context. I don't think I've ever seen the word before in my life. Pretty awesome.

[espeed]

One of my civil engineering friends said something similar the other day when I used "grok" in a conversation, and I was somewhat surprised because programmers have been using it in conversation for years (http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/G/grok.html). Evidently grok still has some pervading to do.

[gadders]

I use it for when I completely understand a skill. On the continuum from unconscious incompetence -> conscious incompetence -> conscious competence -> unconscious competence I see it as the last step.

[DiabloD3]

I'm surprised, it comes up frequently among programmers, and I know not all of them could have read that wonderful book.

[gknoy]

I encountered it in the Jargon file first, and that was part of what prompted me to read Stranger in a Strange Land.

[danpat]

Ditto. I first encountered "grok" in the early 1990s. I read Stranger in a Strange Land for the first time this year.

[mikescoffield]

That's a great article.