One big advantage a founder CEO has over appointed ones: the founder CEO can have a thesis about the identity of the company that's used to guide decisions. An appointed CEO can inherit such a thesis, but can rarely invent one.
Show this thread
Inheriting a thesis is a poor substitute for inventing one, because the thesis of a successful startup usually grows organically out of the founders' personalities and experiences. The appointed CEO is at best wearing someone else's clothes.
-
-
Exception: An appointed CEO who had a similar personality and experiences (e.g. from having worked together) to the founding CEO could presumably assimilate the thesis.
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Snowflake?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Also less likely for the thesis to evolve properly in light of new information, since some of the unspoken assumptions (and their priors) of the thesis usually get corrupted during transmission
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So, do you think YC was better run when headed by you ? I am pretty sure current leaders must be basing their decisions on "what do paul do" rather than trusting their own instincts.
-
Would*
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
John Sculley?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don't see this as a bad thing. What you're describing is a brand, which always starts with a founder but ultimately lives in the minds of consumers. A successful brand is larger than any one person - your job is to nurture, not define it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
“The appointed CEO is at best wearing someone's else's clothes" says
@paulg. Surprising it's not more weighted on cons when VCs change a CEO. Tie his hands with an already decided strategy avoids her own decisionsThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Seems like you should rephrase this to just say an appointed CEO needs equal authority to make real and substantive change to avoid this pitfall. Maybe best to decline to be one without such authority. My mantra: 'no responsibility without authority' Kant: 'ought implies can'
-
If instead all you're saying,
@paulg, is that everyone's different in how they see things, why is the second entrant, with benefit of history, necessarily doomed? Steve Jobs started with others' ideas and did OK. The line between refining ideas and creating new ones is blurry.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.