241
OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman is leaving, too
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2023
241 points (97.3% liked)
Technology
58076 readers
4677 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That doesn't really answer my question though. Why would anyone kick out the people responsible for creating the business in the first place? The people who imagined and thrust the business into life and massive success? Seems like they would be valuable people to shareholders...
They are invariably, actually, not very valuable at all beyond the fruition. Take a look at any Forbes or FT top 100 list and see how many of those companies are being run by founders.
Companies go through a lifecycle of change before they reach anything resembling stability or a pace of business that isn't completely volatile the people in it. During that time the types of people that the business need to achieve the goals of that lifecycle stage are very different.
Steve Jobs types, on the other hand, are actually extremely rare and the exception rather than the rule.
This is still not answering my question of "why?"
Because it requires a completely different skill set to run a startup with only yourself and 50 employees to worry about vs a multi-billion dollar, publicly traded company. People that are good at one of those often aren't good at the other, so when their company changes from the former to the latter, they get the boot for someone better at running the new version of the company.
Sure, that's why you bring on other people with those skillsets to fill those roles. Doesn't mean you have to remove the people who pioneered the company? The "vision", so to speak. The people who understood what it took to make the company what it is in the first place? I mean look at what happened when they ousted Jobs.
Apple is now the most valuable company on earth, so I think you're not making the point you think you're making. Publicly traded companies act only based on what increases the value of their shares the most. If the current CEO isn't seen as the most profitable CEO for the shareholders, they will eventually be replaced, even if they founded the company. That is a risk you knowingly take when taking your company public. Most founders choose the money that comes with an IPO, knowing they'll eventually get the boot.
I think you're just not as familiar with Apple as you think you are. They ousted Jobs very early on and the company subsequently floundered badly. Then they brought him back and then took off like a rocket again to become the monolith they are today (even though he passed some time ago now).
Steve Jobs is the exception. I'm just trying to answer the original question about why this happens so often. I'm not trying to argue about the best way to run a company. But if you're equating every founder with Steve Jobs then we're having a completely different conversation.
It unfortunately often does. It’s hard for the original founders to “let go” and some of the things that were idiosyncrasies at the scale of 10 are actively detrimental to people’s careers and the business’ wider growth when you’re 1000. Experienced founders often recognise when it’s time to hire the “VP Eng” that’ll replace them, but if it’s their first big go at it, they often cling on a bit longer that they should.
It was this bit
Founders are big thinkers and risk takers. When a company has found success, the owners prefer to focus on scaling that value rather than doubling or tripling down on the next big thing but the founders often want to keep betting it all.
Put another way, if you bet 100 and have turned it into 1,000,000 would you want to get your money out or play roulette?
It's not a matter of reward or punishment. It's a matter of the skills required for continued success.
Early startups require big risk-taking, progressing at an absurd speed, charisma to get investor capital, and really just being a little crazy.
Once the concept is proven to be viable and potentially profitable, the focus needs to shift from proving it can work to making it sustainable. This involves less risk, process improvements to avoid issues like getting sued, better money management, more careful time management to avoid burnout of non-founder employees, and generally just being more rational about things.
It's rare that a person can exhibit both of these sets of behaviors, so companies will often swap out the former for the latter as a company matures. If they didn't, the founders might unintentionally drive the company into the ground by taking unnecessary risks after finding something that already works.
Does that answer your question, or did I miss the mark, still?