Hm, yeah. I would not have guessed that this post was a reference to the election by the text alone, but that tweet certainly seems to indicate that it is.
The article suggests that the VC is in an infallible position and the CEO maybe the one who is failing at his job. A common trope is founders getting fired, stepping aside for some socially acceptable reason, which brings their fantastic journey to an end.
Here's a fun thought exercise: When is the VC the problem and not the founders? How do you even go about firing a VC? Have you ever read VC's "fantastic journey" blog post?
The VC is rarely as visible to customers/partners as the CEO which means that they can quietly sell off their holdings (I've heard of cases on HN where it goes to the founder for a "just take this off our portfolio" price when it's clear it's shaping up to be a lifestyle business) and don't need to publicly provide a introduction to the new face or reassurances about the business the way an outgoing CEO does.
While Fred Wilson might be a VC, he's speaking in his capacity as a board member. Boards are critical to corporate governance, and one of their biggest responsibilities on behalf of all shareholders is to hold the CEO & management team accountable.
FIFY: While Fred Wilson might be a VC, he’s speaking in his capacity as an American citizen. Voting is critical to democracies, and one of your biggest responsibilities on behalf of all Americans is to hold government officials accountable.
>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
Why is the CEO failing? The answer is written from the perspective of the VC. Maybe it's a bad founder-CEO. Could there be another side to this story? Let's try and approach this from the CEO's perspective with an open mind.
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?
If one of your VCs goes rogue, you are probably going to face very, very serious problems depending on where you are in the business. Early on, simply put, a bad VC will kill the business.
The VC, on the board, has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders: directly, his firm; the other shareholders, including the founders (!); and indirectly his LPs.
It is the board's responsibility to hire and fire executive management and as both a significant shareholder and board member, has the leverage to do so IF the other board members agree. It is almost never unilateral. Now - in the early-ish days of a company (say,pre-D series), the board is pretty small and pretty acquainted, so the guy who wants to fire you (the CEO) just places about 4 phone calls, and if everyone is on board, gets the ball rolling. Legally, it is a lot easier than it is with a public company or with someone with one of those weird split-stock-right things like Facebook.
> It is an even harder decision to make when you don’t have an obvious replacement, or when you are not 100% confident that the obvious replacement will be an improvement over the current CEO.
When the stakes are high and the cost of keeping current leadership are potentially harmful to a dangerous degree and the only possible replacement isn't an obvious choice (as is the case with the obvious allusion to the US presidency) then this is true.
In reality, do VCs really go so far as to make the call to replace someone with someone else who has the potential to be equally bad? Isn't the risk of two consecutively bad CEOs worse than taking a little longer to find a reasonable replacement?
Great question, that I am going to answer badly, based on my environment.
AV (Austin Ventures) was always known as the big fish in the little pond, ever since I moved here from Japan - and I guess that isn't wrong, but they seemed to have moved onto their version of PE.
But one thing that always irritated me and my "executive" friends was how much they liked to put somebody on their back-bench into your job.
If it's the right choice - nice. If it happens once-or-twice - nice. But If they do it 9 months after every Series A every time, it starts to make a (n aware) founder wary).
I generally don't think founders should be CEOs. Certainly as a founder I should not have been But that doesn't mean youo bring out the brick-bat. It means that you sit down and say something: "Don't you think we should hire the new CEO together and figure our your ongoing role in the company (esp. since you still own 60%)?).
I don't know - I just found them heavy handed.
I don't know that I ever hit at them hard or that they hit at me hard, but I do know that they came in hard and triggered a hard response. At this point, I don't think they like me much (which is sad, because I was just getting to like them), but there are a lot of personal relationships (apparently) in this business
Yes. I don't know how regular it is, but Austin Ventures used to regularly kill founder CEOs after Series B (maybe (probably?) correctly), but replace them from a bunch of bench-players (we used to call them "the Boys Club". They would generally wreck the company, but AV played enough shell games that they, the LPs and their friends always made out OK.
EDIT: They (AV) have more recently (not super-recently) moved into mostly PE, and the incubator seems to be gone (?), but given the VC penchant to syndicate, and AV's penchant to not be nice to work with, even as the big-fish in a small pond, the number of people at places like Interwest or Sevin Rosen to work with them (Central Texas VC types), maybe they felt constrained? Or maybe they shot enough entrepreneurs in the back? Their 5-year-ago-fund was big enough to qualify for PE activity - maybe their new-new partners (the old ones retired about that time) decided they would prefer to apply their Wharton MBA skills/talents to PE? IDK.
By Gawd - I certainly don't mind being down-voted, but since this is not Reddit, would people give the courtesy of telling me what they disagree with? Is that too much to ask?
It would interesting to see some data on CEOs that were fired, at what stage and the eventual outcome for the company. My guess is that firing a founder-CEO before the Series B stage rarely leads to a positive long-term outcome.
Boards hesitate to remove CEOs but CEOs don't hesitate to remove employees. Elite culture requires social niceties and soft treatment while everyone else gets scored, disciplined, and underpaid.
Very few individual employee firings will have broad impact on the company the same way a CEO firing will. The whole process is disruptive by nature, so a board needs to be sure.
This isn't just "elite culture", although there is probably some of that in many scenarios.
edit: responding to a couple of comments - yes this is a feature of how we choose to structure these companies, it is not unavoidable. However, given the distribution of decision making and responsibility in a typical American corporate structure, removing the CEO is inherently difficult.
One can imagine situations where it is less disruptive, but those companies would look and operate quite differently.
Cultural practices exist for a variety of reasons. This is one of them. The people in the ownership class need each other for various reasons because they have control over substantial resources than can disrupt the plans of other members. For lower level employees, their only strength is numbers and unless they realize this they can be treated much worse for arbitrary reasons.
It sucks but to interface with elite culture and get them to give you money, it helps to have members of that culture as your leadership. Otherwise the non-elite wouldn't even have jobs (which are not needed so badly by the elite).
My immediate thought is that this is due to visibility. You can churn through the lowest level positions for a while before questions are asked, but you can't do that for CEOs. Its also the case for other prominent positions. If someone with a big following joins and then leaves very quickly someone will comment on it and if its big enough an article will be written. No company wants to be noticed for people leaving, but they'll make a big song and dance when big wig from X company moves to them.
I am not a media person, a board member of a major company, nor an executive. I am a socialist, so I find it simple to express the sentiment of class war that is so anathema to the elite classes that partake in it constantly against the lower classes.
https://a16z.com/2017/05/24/on-firing-why-when-how/
https://a16z.com/2011/08/24/preparing-to-fire-an-executive/