Enjoyed this, thanks (the coaching stuff in particular was great). However I disagreed with the below comment for a few reasons:
"investors will still find themselves confronted by a choice to ignore problematic personality or relationship dynamics in favour of the potential outsized returns of the business or market opportunity. After all, you can always replace a CEO."
It feels like the drive required to become a unicorn CEO often requires an iconoclastic worldview and/or a very strong personal drive to fill a void somewhere. The anecdotes of Zuck talking about "conquering" seem deeply personal and a key to what makes him, him.
There is massive personal growth required as a founder goes from sole employee to head of a >1000-person organisation and investors have to be willing to invest in that process of change as well. There is a huge amount of grey in the real world and I think it's really difficult for an outside investor to make an informed choice as to whether the CEO is a problem or if they are just going through a challenging period in their personal journey.
For most of these visionaries, if you replace them you lose the drive that makes their company unique, because other people are not motivated in the same way. Once the business has scaled, sure, you can (and sometimes should) replace the visionary founder/s because the skills required for success at scale are different. Just my two cents.
Enjoyed this, thanks (the coaching stuff in particular was great). However I disagreed with the below comment for a few reasons:
"investors will still find themselves confronted by a choice to ignore problematic personality or relationship dynamics in favour of the potential outsized returns of the business or market opportunity. After all, you can always replace a CEO."
It feels like the drive required to become a unicorn CEO often requires an iconoclastic worldview and/or a very strong personal drive to fill a void somewhere. The anecdotes of Zuck talking about "conquering" seem deeply personal and a key to what makes him, him.
There is massive personal growth required as a founder goes from sole employee to head of a >1000-person organisation and investors have to be willing to invest in that process of change as well. There is a huge amount of grey in the real world and I think it's really difficult for an outside investor to make an informed choice as to whether the CEO is a problem or if they are just going through a challenging period in their personal journey.
For most of these visionaries, if you replace them you lose the drive that makes their company unique, because other people are not motivated in the same way. Once the business has scaled, sure, you can (and sometimes should) replace the visionary founder/s because the skills required for success at scale are different. Just my two cents.