by Michael Durwin
This is also a huge
reason why so many companies falter: you've just replaced the visionary leader.
It almost every case of a founder-CEO being replaced, it is at the behest of the
shareholders and board. Why? Greed. They simply want the company to get bigger
and make money. Unfortunately, once you removed the visionary, you remove the
vision. You replace him with, as the article says, ''An individual skilled to
manage the growth''. Why does this person need to replace the founder? Let's
call this guy the Growth Manager.
The growth manager
wasn't smart or clever enough to come up with the business, he didn't have the
[passion to grow it from nothing into a successful company. His only skill is
his ability to squeeze out profits and manage resources issues' great skill,
but not one that will lead to real , long term growth, just immediate dividends.
Look at two recent turnovers: apple and Twitter.
All the founders
are out of leadership roles at Twitter or out all together Instead they have
Dick. What has Dick overseen? Censorship, advertising ,sponsored links and
recommendations, and mass user departures.
Apple ousted Steve
Jobs and replaced him with a bean counter named John Sculley because they
wanted to ''limit (Jobs) ability to launch expensive forays into untested
products''. What happened? Disaster one of those expensive forays was a new
operating system which Jobs launched at NEXT. Once Apple's board smartened up
and brought Jobs back, he continued to launch expensive forays into untested
products'' which became the iPod, iphone, iPad, MacAir. Now the company is
bigger than Exxon.
Does a start-up
need a Growth Manager once it gets big enough? Absolutely but that person
should be an advisor and partner to the visionary that gave birth to the
company. That person has special skills and experience that the founder-CEO
does not. But to replace a visionary leader with a visionless business manager
is to remove the Soul from the company, without which it will die. It's a far
smarter move to teach the visionary how to manage growth and take on managerial
responsibilities to let the CEO do what he has always done best: envision,
inspire and lead.
If Mark Zuckerberg is
ever ousted from Facebook, you will see a rapid decline within the first year.
The same goes for Richard Branson. He may not be managing the companies day to
day but his vision and charisma make it one of the coolest most successful
brands around.
Culled from Inc.com
"ONCE YOU REMOVED THE VISIONARY, YOU REMOVE THE VISION". COULD NOT HAVE SAID IT BETTER MYSELF. ATIMES, I MYSELF WONDER WHY BOARDS MAKE DECISIONS TO REMOVE THESE KINDS OF PEOPLE WHO NOT ONLY STARTED THE FIRM BUT ARE THE FACES OF THESE FIRMS. EMPHASIS ON FACE HERE BECAUSE THE BRAND OF THESE FIRMS ARE HEAVILY FOUNDED ON BY THE PERSONALITIES OF THESE INDIVIDUALS. TAKE STEVE JOBS FOR INSTANCE. I RECALL A VIDEO OF THE LAUNCH OF THE FIRST APPLE PRODUCT DURING THE 1984 SUPERBOWL. GRANTED I WAS NOT EVEN CONCEIVED WHEN THAT ADVERT WAS SHOWN, BUT SITTING THERE IN THE LECTURE ROOM, I COULD FEEL THE EXCITEMENT, THE BUILD UP, THE ANTICIPATION TO "THE NEXT BIG THING". YOU SEE, STEVE DID NOT JUST SEE A COMPUTER AS A MACHINE THAT CAN HELP TO DO THINGS PEOPLE CANNOT BE BOTHERED TO DO, HE SAW THIS MACHINE AS A SUPERIOR PRODUCT WORTHY OF YOUR ATTENTION AND TIME BECAUSE OF THE EMPHASIS TO DETAIL AND DESIGN OF THESE PRODUCTS, HENCE HE SAW IT FITTING, THAT A LAUNCH AT THE SUPERBOWL ( AND IF ANYONE KNOWS HOW MUCH IT COSTS TO ADVERTISE AT THE SUPERBOWL, THEY'LL UNDERSTAND THE GRAVITY OF THIS) WAS JUST PERFECT FOR THIS PRODUCT. I AGREE HANDS DOWN, THAT ATIMES THESE PEOPLE MIGHT NOT " MBA WEARING SUIT TYPE PEOPLE" BUT THE BOARDS SHOULD NOT RESPOND BY SACKING THEM, THEY SHOULD RESPOND BY BRINGING ON THESE GROWTH PEOPLE TO HELP AS ADVISERS AND TEACHERS. TEACHERS BECAUSE THEY CAN MENTOR THESE VISIONARIES ON THE WAYS BY WHICH A FIRM IS TAKEN FROM ONE LEVEL TO THE NEXT, WITHOUT JEOPARDISING THESE BRANDS.
ReplyDelete