What I learned as a VC filling in as a startup CEO for 4 months
venturebeat.com
venturebeat.com
It appears that she's someone who didn't come from means, put herself through college by waitressing, kept getting jobs in PE/VC (haven't looked up her bio as that would be creepy), and became a senior enough player at a firm to be installed as an interim-keep-the-ship-steady CEO while a new candidate was being found.
Job performance has a high correlation with IQ (and by extension the ability to learn quickly); especially for executive roles. The author is someone who juggles complex financial models all day; surely she's more than smart, capable and relentlessly resourceful enough to take on the mantle of an interim CEO. Sure, she might not be a long-term candidate (for now), but an interim CEO is meant to make sure that the finances stay okay, the fires get put out, and that the ship doesn't sink until a new skipper can be found. That's all. It's a job that's not too far from her initial skills with an added operational component that she's delving into over here. Compared to most "CEOs" I've met, she's probably overqualified.
For those questioning the VC firm who sent her in, it's impossible that she was sent in alone. She's probably being advised by the GPs and a curated set of experts to make the right operational decisions. Her job is to execute the plan and Not Fuck Up (a harder job than it seems). And it appears that she succeeded in doing so.
She rose to her professional challenge, learned something and wrote something from a position of humility. How many of us (especially the detractors) can claim the same?
From her perspective it sounds like she did a great job. It would be interesting to hear from other employees of that company on whether they feel the same as she does. This could have been measured along the way with a set of company wide surveys and certainly would have fallen within their data-first approach to reporting.
eh? how would it be creepy? honestly, your comment is creepy.
i did look her up (not independently, but inspired by your strange reticence), and what i found odd -- but shouldn't have -- is that the banner photo on the article isn't her. it's just a completely unrelated stock photo. that's interesting because the article is a self-pr SEO type piece, not a dispassionate generic "industry observer" piece or other type of actual analysis. it's the type of article that would actually benefit from an actual photo of the author.
Wow. this story is nothing short of a blatant anecdote about nepotism and should be treated with the shock and dismay that this mishandling warrants.
That the board couldn't find a better successor for a few months from the existing staff speaks volume about the competency of the board and gross negligence on their part. Seriously, the CFO, COO, Head of Product, etc at a 100 person company didn't have the chops to hold the reigns as interim-CEO for a single quarter?
wtf?
this isn't to say the author is incapable (although they are unqualified) or that they don't raise valuable insights (mostly for VCs and investors it seems) but that this company and its leadership have failed in their most basic responsibilities to the shareholders and we SHOULD NOT EVER celebrate this level of incompetency.
There's a site guideline that covers this: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." It applies to articles too.
The role of CEO is high status and highly desirable. I think it's safe to assume most readers of this site have coveted it from time to time and had to accept at some point that they're in that role.
It's easier to accept this is you assume CEOs are exceptional and different to you in some way: as founders; impressive track record; or something similar.
However, this article gives an example of someone just like us stepping easily into that role. How can that be? Why can't we have this? Either there is a problem with this CEO or we're missing out. It's easier to believe the former That's what the comments are about.
Relax, it's a quick sunday read. Go do something nice for someone.
0. https://www.crunchbase.com/person/clay-whitehead#section-ove...
https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/PresenceLearning-Reviews-E...
Crunchbase could be out of date, or maybe one of the cofounders stepped up.
I'm sure they're a smart individual but expression and context matters, and still leaves the question of not finding someone in the actual company who could take over temporarily.
Shouldn't this be obvious?
A board member sleeps, has no or little personal skin in the game and is hedged across multiple ventures.
The CEO rarely sleeps (or has more responsibilities than time permits addressed), is "all in" and rarely substantially hedged, especially in early-stage startups.
edit: of any company over say 30 in size.
I know of a small (30 million a year) organization where board members input 20-40 hours a week. Not nearly as much as a CEO...but still much more then in other orgs.
0. https://www.crunchbase.com/person/mia-ficerai#section-jobs
Edit.
It is not Datavail, Weave, PresenceLearning or Envoy Global.
It could be Jobvite or Galvanize.
"Interestingly the slide that seemed to resonate the most was an overview of what was not part of the strategy."
If someone can achieve that, defining what is out and get team buy in, that person is more qualified to be CEO than 80% of managers I met in my career so far.
She's a Principal at a VC, she's got two bachelors degrees (one in Economics), experience working in M&A and she was a board member. Yet somehow, despite knowing literally nothing about the company she was CEO of, Hacker News have decided not only that she was unqualified, but:
> I dug a bit to figure out what space the company is in, so that I can avoid using their services if it was applicable.
>Why on earth was this person in any way shape or form the person to step in?
>How did a waitress become a VC? (Didn’t read the article)
Despite that piece of information literally being a cheeky throw away line in the intro of the piece.
My only other comment here is a push back against what I felt was a comment going too far the other way. But the amount of comments similar to the ones you quoted are far too much.
I found this line astounding and not in good ways.
When a new senior person is announced (even interim), the first thing most people do is ask "what has this person done?" and they scour LinkedIn, writing, social media, etc to understand what they're about and their background.
I'm trying to imagine senior leadership's reaction on the initial news and during that 4 months. Even if the interim CEO busted her butt, just about the time she has an understanding in the company, team, etc, she was on the way out.
> The company has 100+ employees, hundreds of customers, and more than 15,000 end users.
> My entire professional career has been in finance, where I have worked in small, flat organizations with a project-driven, deal team-oriented model.
Which is immediately followed by:
> In short, I had no idea what to expect, and I learned a lot, quickly.
This wasn't 3 people working on building v0.1 or early customer discovery. This was a 100+ person company with some momentum.
1. This is a great way for Catalyst to get a potential rising star some operational experience in a low-risk situation (lots of other Catalyst people apparently involved, short timeline, etc.)
2. She said she was involved with the company since their investment (which, if it is PresenceLearning as others said, was 3+ years ago), and has been a board member either since that time, or for a while.
3. Senior leadership probably all knew her or at least of her, given her involvement as an investor.
4. I think the waitress line is a throwaway to try to be humble and build rapport with readers. Working in VC/PE is useful for keeping a company going from an operational perspective.
I find it surprising that not a single one of the existing 100 employees could be temporarily promoted to the CEO role.
I'll admit: I dug a bit to figure out what space the company is in, so that I can avoid using their services if it was applicable.
Side thought: It'd be interesting to do a bizarro "Undercover Boss" where you make someone without any experience the CEO of a large company for a week.
A month to a year, depending on the industry and company, would be a lot harder. With a big company with long product cycles a month might largely be a vacation/autopilot too, but at a startup or in a critical time for a company, even a month could be life or death.
You're right - you would need some extended period of time, especially at a larger company.
At so many levels.
Really really weird.
I wonder if the author's LinkedIn now says "Acting CEO" at company blah, thereby qualifying them for some full CEO role somewhere as a next career step.
Why on earth was this person in any way shape or form the person to step in?
Once of the C-level people should have, or someone in the VC's network.
"In the CEO role it quickly becomes obvious that empathy and compassion are far more valuable than financial acumen. "
Yes, but understanding the product, customers, operational details, and knowing where to direct the system is probably more important than 'empathy and compassion'.
"It’s easier to be a board member than a CEO"
Who doesn't already know this?
My crusty comments aside, it's a good read.
As interm CEO, her job is keep the lights on while the board conducts a search for a new CEO. That’s it. She’s not expected to come up with strategy, or really change anything except put the immediate fires out. It’s a caretaker position.
That said, it’s a bit disingenuous to read her comment as as saying that these business skills are not important. In fact, she doesn’t mention of these product and marketing skills at all. She’s talking about finance, which she primarily focused on as a VC and a board member. Given that C-suite jobs are primarily political, it’s completely fair to observe that soft skills are more important than reading a P & L sheet.
Did you even read the article?
The #1 headline point was "coming up with strategy": here's the reference:
"1. A clear strategy is the key to execution When I assumed the CEO role, the organization had been struggling with a lack of strategic clarity. The company is in a market with both endless growth opportunities and nearly as many potential distractions if strategy is not clear and priorities are not set. Creating a true north star for the team was my top priority."
1/2 the articles was about this.
So yes, her role 'should have been' to keep the lights on, and definitely not make consequential decisions as such, so why on earth is she doing it?
Also - her comment about 'compassion vs. financial acumen' was essentially pointless in the context that 'financial acumen' is not necessarily that important about a startup either.
This was possibly a shameful exercise in mismanagement.
"I had no idea what I was doing, I read some pop-culture books on being a CEO, I was empathetic, and I laid down a company strategy based on industry buzzwords"
Ridiculous.
"Keeping the lights on" is what she should have done as a 'member of the board overseeing the company temporarily'.
She should have worked with the remaining C-level team to set some priorities, pick some things to fix, and probably lean in with some financial concerns if there as an opportunity to do that. That's it.
The bigger issue is that the article is non-transparent.
What company? Why CEO left? What was achieved during those 4 months?
I would bet a certain amount of money that if they hired an actual waitress, the results would not have been worse and, most probably, better.