Being a founder doesn't make you a CEO or a Leader
In 2016, I was working in a gigantic tech organization while fintechs and many other startups were emerging and causing the "digital transformation." I was mesmerized. I wanted to join that movement, so I started connecting with people, communities, and groups. I had the opportunity to help many entrepreneurs start their companies.
I had a decisive role as the product and marketing leader in two of these companies, founded by the same person. The CEO was incredible with ideas; he understood what other people couldn't see.
Coming from a poor place in Brazil, he always had the sense that "I need to build something to solve people's problems." Not in the sense of getting rich only, but in questioning, "how many people are struggling with the same problem I am, and there's no solution to it yet?".
Because of this "real world" motivation, this guy created a $100 million startup sold in the second year of operation.
After he got rich, he lost the sense of understanding people. He was too validated. He realized that he was outstanding at raising money. But he wanted to control his ideas and make them worth $100 million again, and he played the CEO role in all his following companies.
But he wasn't a CEO. Not a people leader, tech-savvy, or product manager. He was a "raiser," an investor relations leader, and a vision seller. But not a CEO.
I could spend hours explaining why some of his requests were more complicated than he thought and how we could overcome the problems and deliver the solution. But he was fighting with time. He overpromised. And he was only seeking for a company to buy his idea.
We made some money, true. But one day, I looked at the team; they were gone for good because they couldn't handle all that craziness and nonsense requests. And they were right.
He was never successful anymore. And I lost a friend because he couldn't listen to the truth. Only his reality and his view were correct. Investors validated him in the past; people told him he was a genius. So he knew things and people.
Bullshit.
What I learned
One of the things that I learned working with startups and meeting several founders is: a founder is not necessarily a CEO. Not only that, the lack of leadership skills boosted by a successful investment round (either a seed or Series A) makes them validated for the market and their pairs.
Which doesn't mean they are capable of leading their companies.
A leader is not a title. You will not become a leader just because you have it on your Linkedin. You will become a leader when people understand your guidance and leadership as someone to follow, to trust. Not only that, you become a leader when people feel free to question your decisions without fear of being laid off.
Being good at pitching and raising doesn't make you a good leader for your company. When designing a roadmap, the company's vision and mission should be there, for sure. But is the ability to deliver, to develop without causing your team burnout in your plans too?
There's also another point I learned with founders from around the globe: Young founders with no working experience usually need to understand what a leadership team means. They see the leadership team (the heads) as the people that will deliver their vision rather than the group to share ideas and debate paths to achieve greatness. Their lack of sense of team working (plus, again, the validation from a successful investment round) makes them feel right in any circumstance.
And if it's a company with two or more founders, they praise themselves. Of course, they argue with each other, but they are the "endangered animal." No other person, especially those "below," can question them. And there's always one who believes they are the true magician — that "Adam Neumann" or "Steve Jobs" feeling.
You might argue that "the founder is the one with the vision and the one that brings that team together, so this person should be the one with the last word, as it is the ultimate entrepreneur."
Bullshit. A way too romantic speech for the real world.
Just look at the market: The companies once overexcited people called "the next big thing" can't stand the game of time. And founders should look at all these scenarios and build a team that will make their vision timeproof and market resilient. Unfortunately, we see otherwise.
A founder should question their abilities to be a CEO. What this title actually means?
I have terrible news for you if you read in one of these leadership books that challenging people is the only way to build a company. Remember, a CEO is not the one running the operation but overseeing it. You must delegate, drive profitability, manage organizational structure and strategy, and communicate with the board. Otherwise, you're someone's successful cousin who brings shame during family meetings.
Hire people to lead. Bring experienced and talented people to build your company with you. And listen to these people. Be humble. And stop putting your friends in C-Level positions, so you can have someone to say you’re right the time.
One last thing
This founder's sense of validation and excess confidence is partially a VCs fault. They call these founders "genius," "outstanding," and "exciting" on Linkedin posts. And instead of becoming business partners, they become father figures. They create not a portfolio but a membership to a group of other people who genuinely believe they are the ones who will change the world.
I bet and hope this "post-pandemic" scenario will make VCs less romantic and egocentric, more straightforward, and more active in tracking and growing their portfolio decently.
