Here's something that rubs me the wrong way whenever I see it: a senior leader tells their story in a way that makes her current or former employer look like total idiots. If they meant to do that, fine - everyone has an axe to grind. But I am actually not sure they even realize they are doing it.

How many times have we read an article that goes like this: "when I started at X, everything was a mess. I quickly turned things around by doing Y." Well the CEO who hired you at that company now looks like an idiot, and their board of directors is quickly taking notes. You took credit by making someone else look bad. Was that really necessary to get to the point you're trying to convey?

The reality is that the CEO built something out of nothing, and prioritized certain tasks (eg: PMF) while deprioritizing others (eg: the company's expense policy). Eventually there was enough money in the bank for the company to afford a $300k/year hire, who then paid back the administrative debt. How you paid back that debt is orders of magnitude less heroic than how the CEO got to the position of being able to afford your salary in the first place.

I really wonder if all those later-stage senior leaders could be that tone-deaf, or if they are throwing their CEOs under the bus on purpose.