What I learned as a VC filling in as a startup CEO for 4 months(venturebeat.com)
venturebeat.com
What I learned as a VC filling in as a startup CEO for 4 months
https://venturebeat.com/2019/05/19/what-i-learned-as-a-vc-filling-in-as-a-startup-ceo-for-4-months/
85 comments
I would be careful with the blanket statement "Job performance has a high correlation with IQ".
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557354/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557354/
Unfortunately the article is lacking in specifics which leaves a lot of room open for interpretation.
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.
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.
> haven't looked up her bio as that would be creepy
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.
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.
I am COMPLETELY SHOCKED that there are people here trying to legitimately defend this author and article.
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.
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.
[deleted]
Why would it be creepy? She’s posting about her experiences and such, no? Checking someone’s LinkedIn or some other profile doesn’t seem creepy in that case to me.
All: some comments below have taken a tack that's not good for HN: seizing on one line, in which the author was obviously downplaying herself, then piling on with pedestrian indignation. That makes for lame discussion—equal parts sour and boring. The value of HN is curiosity. If you find yourself driven to post like that, please wait until curiosity is what you're feeling instead. Then you'll respond to something interesting in this unusual article. Or perhaps you'll find something more interesting elsewhere. Either is fine, but piling on is for other places.
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.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
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.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I don't have a problem with the comments. They're illuminating under a close reading.
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.
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.
[deleted]
It seems you have a very specific kind of comment with a specific content that you want to see here, if thats the case you may post it yourself and disable all others to be completely sure the existing comments are within the bounds of the guidelines.
Not at all. It's indignation that's specific; curiosity is legion. When I post like that, the purpose is to encourage less common, wider-ranging comments. Those don't always appear without help, for the same reason that flowers don't always grow through weeds.
The writer's a VP, won awards, worked in i-banking, and has a double bachelors from an ivy league. She's trying to be cheeky and the first hot takes from the HN community is whoa, how dare they!
Relax, it's a quick sunday read. Go do something nice for someone.
Relax, it's a quick sunday read. Go do something nice for someone.
Also, it's PresenceLearning, a digital platform to connect learning professionals with K-12 students. It just takes two minutes of reading some context.
I don’t think it is PresenceLearning as they still have a founder who is described as the Co-CEO [0].
0. https://www.crunchbase.com/person/clay-whitehead#section-ove...
0. https://www.crunchbase.com/person/clay-whitehead#section-ove...
The commentary about PresenceLearning on Glassdoor sounds about right. They even mention the interm CEO (favorably, fwiw).
https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/PresenceLearning-Reviews-E...
Crunchbase could be out of date, or maybe one of the cofounders stepped up.
https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/PresenceLearning-Reviews-E...
Crunchbase could be out of date, or maybe one of the cofounders stepped up.
Interesting. I am surprised when they had a co-founder that they put in a CEO who's only hands on business experience was being a waitress.
So finance is all of a sudden not relevant for a business anymore? Interesting take. I stated it already elsewhere, but maybe a finance focused interim CEO was exactly what was needed. Also, maybe the co-founder didn't feel like the right fit for CEO at that point in time? Just being a founder doesn't qualify automatically as CEO, examples include Uber and Google.
Your research skills is lacking. Using crunchbase or TechCrunch to figure out what's going on is like reading IMDB and watching Entertainment Tonight to figure out what's going on in Hollywood. Go find the news wires, go read the gossip rags.
[deleted]
None of that is operational experience, as they themselves wrote. I've never seen an award that mattered either.
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.
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.
You're reading too deep into it. It's a quirky little anecdote written as a throwaway listicle published on a weekend beat from a third rate pop tech news site.
That context isn't in the article; people are judging based on what is in the written article.
Some of these comments are making me ashamed of the Hacker News after being here for 11 years.
It’s easier to be a board member than a CEO.
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.
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.
I mostly agree with this - however it's important to remember that in smaller organizations....
Board members may still be incredibly involved and active.
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.
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.
Who doesn't have "more responsibilities than time permits addressed"? There's a reason most of us don't call our moms so often.
Being a CEO of a company, is in no way comparable to any other position within that same company. There are orders of magnitudes different. There is a reason (rightfully so) that a CEO is paid much more than anyone else*. Like a doctor, who is responsible for lives - a CEO is responsible for 100's, 1000's of financial livelihoods...
edit: of any company over say 30 in size.
edit: of any company over say 30 in size.
Which of the 6 companies do you think Mia was CEO of [0]?
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.
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.
[deleted]
This section, I think, is really important and has to come from the top:
"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.
"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.
I’m not impressed with the comments here. The author has eight years of experience in finance and was apparently the best person to fill this role despite her lack of directly relevant experience. (You might disagree, but that was the perspective of investors with a lot of skin in the game.) The article makes good points and is well written. And yet it seems half of the comments can’t get past the fact that she worked as a waitress back around the time the iPhone came out. I’m not one to cry sexism, but I’m seeing s lot of it (and perhaps some classism too) in this thread. Please do better, HN.
[deleted](1)
Sexism is a low blow and unsubstantiated outside of the suffix "ress". Provide proof for your claims.
I think the GP went a bit far, but I can't help feeling a bit of it in the air. Something about the word "waitress" caused a weird backlash. For example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19957074 is not a good-faith comment.
if you have to jump to sexism without any evidence then you need a better argument. you should do better instead of asking HN.
The evidence is right in front of anyone who reads hacker news regularly. You might have a different judgement, but it's not difficult to say that I've seen lots of articles on Hacker news where men in similar situations are regarded as go getters who have the balls to get stuck in and take a swing at the top job.
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.
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.
Thanks for posting a mini compilation of comments. Pretty clear to me as well what the intent of a number of comments are when you’re reading through or even just skimming all the comments.
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.
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.
they would say that even if it was a guy. your just assuming and thats not evidence its sexist.
If the author were a man, you would not bring gender into the discussion. Also, by bringing gender into the discussion, you've only managed to expose your own biases, not the others'.
[deleted]
I don't necessarily think accepting this kind of interim CEO thing is the worst possible call for a company sometimes, but it's definitely not something I'd want to publicize even after the fact as the "CEO", VC firm, or operating company.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> Prior to this role, my “operating experience” consisted of working as a waitress during college.
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.
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.
This is not uncommon in the PE/LBO world; often “turnaround CEOs” are finance professionals who essentially act as lieutenants for the GPs rather than independent executives. The real problem is when those people then go back into the world thinking of themselves as temporarily embarrassed CEOs; few of them who leave PE (based entirely on my anecdotal experience, to be sure) go on to be effective c-suite leaders. Totally wrong personality, decisionmaking, and execution profiles.
And they’d see she works at a VC firm and is a board member / observer at many companies. Seems reasonable, especially given the lack of experience of many startup CEOs anyway.
A few points:
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.
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.
How many SV startups are founded by recent college grads? Quite a few. I agree that it's not really that positive a thing, but it's certainly not atypical.
I 100% agree except that this isn't day one where they're still figuring out the basics and where the bathrooms are. From the article:
> The company has 100+ employees, hundreds of customers, and more than 15,000 end users.
> The company has 100+ employees, hundreds of customers, and more than 15,000 end users.
That's out of context, isn't it? What does the next sentence say?
You mean this:
> 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.
> 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.
[deleted]
VCs without any operational experience are a major problem. This is why so many companies get advised into the overfunded death cycle and never actually build a sustainable enterprise.
I find it surprising that not a single one of the existing 100 employees could be temporarily promoted to the CEO role.
I find it surprising that not a single one of the existing 100 employees could be temporarily promoted to the CEO role.
A single employee makes sense from the outside. It's a control thing. A CEO doesn't need to actually know anything if the board is controlling direction. Hiring someone who doesn't have a relationship with the board would introduce risk.
Or a contract temporary CEO found - plenty of them around and presumably a VC would know many.
Your suggestion is the right one - a contract CEO (with similar vertical or even horizontal experience) is better than a financial number cruncher.
I guess that depends on the situation of the company in question, doesn't it? If there have been financial issues a good number and finance cruncher might be exactly what the company needed to survive.
"The company has 100+ employees, hundreds of customers, and more than 15,000 end users. I spent almost four months as CEO. Prior to this role, my “operating experience” consisted of working as a waitress during college."
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.
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.
Re: bizzaro undercover boss, If it's for a week, "just don't fuck it up" would be fine. If I got airdropped into something where I had no experience or relevant insight (e.g. CEO of LVMH for a week), the only thing I could realistically do is try to keep stuff that was already working working (by deferring any decisions or just making "what would you do" delegations to subordinates), and spending the week learning about operations/industry. Maybe there would be a little value in someone from a different industry doing a high-level review of functional areas (e.g. seeing how LVMH manages inventory vs. wherever he had experience, or for me maybe digging into IT/security, or if you have nothing, just do "secret shopper" traditional undercover boss and then report back to the real CEO when he comes back).
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.
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.
"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.
You're right - you would need some extended period of time, especially at a larger company.
tbh I'd assume the point of a bizarro undercover boss was less to do with actually turning the company around and more to do with "other C-level execs discover junior product manager has insights into customer base and development timelines that aren't captured by metrics, McKinsey or reports from the division VP; junior product manager discovers the things he thought the CEO should obviously introduce are in fact very difficult to change, and realises how difficult it is to grasp the needs of other products and departments" crammed into 40 minutes of TV time.
Why wouldn't you use their services? Because they had an interim CEO? If that would be a reason a lot of companies would be out, wouldn't they?
Should also avoid that VC firm that sent her in.
This is the strangest thing I've read today.
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.
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.
I know many "acting CEO's" list that time as CEO, and are considered CEO (and rightfully so) for that duration.
I assume 'Interim CEO' is also acceptable
I concur, though I've noticed in press related items they're just "CEO".
This could almost pass for satire.
keiferski(1)
bitcoinmoney(1)
sooooo many questions..
"The company has 100+ employees, hundreds of customers, and more than 15,000 end users. I spent almost four months as CEO. Prior to this role, my “operating experience” consisted of working as a waitress during college. My entire professional career has been in finance, where I have worked in small, flat organizations with a project-driven, deal team-oriented model. In short, I had no idea what to expect, and I learned a lot, quickly."
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.
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.
> Yes, but understanding the product, customers, operational details, and knowing where to direct the system is probably more important than 'empathy and compassion'.
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.
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.
"That’s it. She’s not expected to come up with strategy, "
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.
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.
[deleted]
I don't see any problem here. Investors control the company. If they want to hire Micky Mouse to run it, so be it.
The bigger issue is that the article is non-transparent.
What company? Why CEO left? What was achieved during those 4 months?
The bigger issue is that the article is non-transparent.
What company? Why CEO left? What was achieved during those 4 months?
Instead of suggesting better suited person for the role, I believe we should consider this as yet another example of reality where CEOs do not really influence outcome of the company, especially once it has grown to 100+ employees. Most of the points in the article ("insights") are buzzword filled generic Markov chain generated advice that you can find in pretty much any other book or website.
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.
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.
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?