1/ I love this question and I believe it's much harder than most CEOs think initially. I think teammates of varying backgrounds and learning styles absorb complex information differently- and I've found that discussing strategy as a team is not straightforward for most.
2/ I am a fan of talking about it frequently and in different formats. As CEO I tried to do it every 6 weeks as a co and for the formats to change. Sometimes presentation, sometimes fireside Q&A, sometimes panel w/ heads of teams talking about strategy, small and large groups etc
3/ The repetition helped teammates absorb, think about it and have it ingrained. They also could see evolutions over time- which are inevitable for a startup- and not have those iterations feel like giant pivots (as they may if only talked about strategy 1x-2x per yr)
4/ The different formats helped different learning styles. Some people loved being able to ask questions in Town Hall format. Others strongly preferred small group discussion. Some teammates liked the slides- especially opportunity to review before/after the talk.
5/ Every six weeks may sound like a lot, but I found less and it led to fraying at the edges. To keep it fresh the various formats helped, as did trying to lighten it up. Playing a game, physically moving the location of the talk to different parts of the office, etc.
6/ I don't think there is one right way to discuss strategy but I found consistent repetition in terms of the basic concepts and varying how those concepts were delivered to be helpful
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ In preparation for my transition away from CEO in October, I had done research on how others navigated similar transitions. Since then others have asked that work. Here is a summary of that research and some of my learnings about the transition.
2/ For context: I talked to about 15 CEOs that transitioned out of their role. Some got fired, some had companies that folded up, some sold their company for billion(s) and some ran public companies. It was purposefully a wide range.
3/ I also did a fair amount of reading. I won't summarize it all- but this book was by far the best. Would recommend it to anyone going through a transition of any kind (moving, changing jobs, divorce, death), or supporting someone who is:
1/ One of the more helpful frameworks I’ve seen as an operator and investor was taught to me by one of our advisors a few yrs ago. When there is a problem, try diagnosing from the top down:
Mission
Vision
Strategy
Culture
People
Tactics
Product
Distribution
Sales
Marketing
2/ The original framework is applicable for a certain type of biz. What I show above is my adaptation for startups. I like using this when there is confusion or misalignment. Basic concept is to start at top and see if there is alignment. If yes move to vision, then strategy etc.
3/ Eventually (often higher than the we would like to hear) the misalignment is identified. While we think we are talking about a difference in [Sales] tactics, it turns out there is actually a difference in [Strategy] alignment.
1) I feel deep gratitude to Chad for being willing to open up about his experience. It would have been so easy to listen to advisors/PR folks and not talk about his genuine experience.
Him opening up I am sure has helped countless others normalize their own struggles.
That’s particularly generous given the incredible status he has earned. Thank you @chaddickerson
1/ Equity crowdfunding or equity investment marketplaces failed. Full stop. Didn’t work.
Here is my synopsis on why the industry hasn’t taken off. Lots of reflection and painful lessons I hope others can learn from.
2/ Reason #1: The financial feedback loop for vc takes yrs. If you want one core reason the industry has not succeeded, it is this. Time between when an investor writes a check and gets confidence she should write again- is way too long to encourage repeat investment
3/ If you are ever at a YC event and some entrepreneur pitches you on a marketplace that helps private companies raise money…..ask how they will solve this issue.
1/ “Unilever for the 21st century.” I’ve gotten that pitch almost 1x a week for the past few yrs. I believe in concept but haven’t seen the execution yet.
Here is what I think about the ideas and what I think still needs to be figured out.
2/ First - almost everyone I’ve seen has a similar pitch on the problem to be solved. Massive market with stale incumbents that can’t innovate, yet consumers demand innovation. Incumbents focused on profitability > R&D while consumers are asking for personalized products
3/ And so the enterprising founder sees a massive industry and stale incumbents and says “I can build Unilever for the 21st century. New fresh brands, build it first on d2c so I’m not encumbered by legacy brands or retailer relationships.”
1/ VC efforts to build internal technology products continue to grow since I tweeted this in 2018. Most of those efforts are to influence perception of LPs or potential portfolio companies. Some are having impact. Here is my evaluation framework.
2/ First focus on the problem that is being solved by the data. Investing into tech for tech sake is dumb (that’s a real term). Let’s debundle the VC/PE process to identify what the job is, then evaluate where data/tech is likely to help: