I loved the last chapter of his start-up guide: "Title: how to hire a CEO for your start-up. Body: Just don't. If there's no one among the founders who can be CEO, leave ASAP."
You think Eric Schmidt has done a bad job leading Google? You really think two guys with zero experience even working for, much less leading, a company wouldn't have slipped up by now? I think it very wise Larry and Serge enabled Schmidt to take the helm.
Andressen got a bum deal with Netscape. Their VC appointed leadership, IMHO, was, uh, lacking. But hey, them's was the early days.
yes, that was my point. He wasn't a founder and has done a great job. My point was simply that I disagree with Andressen in that your job as a founder and to investors is to keep an open mind. If you have what it takes to be CEO, do it. If not, acknowledge it and find someone who can.
Then your point is moot. The context is startup. Eric does a good job for a post-startup, which is already very profitable with a revenue of $86m in 2001 (http://investor.google.com/fin_data2003.html). As a matter of fact, many think that Eric is more "lucky" than "good", given his track record at Novell.
14 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 38.0 ms ] threadI loved the last chapter of his start-up guide: "Title: how to hire a CEO for your start-up. Body: Just don't. If there's no one among the founders who can be CEO, leave ASAP."
It would be awesome if he started writing again.
Andressen got a bum deal with Netscape. Their VC appointed leadership, IMHO, was, uh, lacking. But hey, them's was the early days.
I've seen tech companies run by very smart PHD's and not run well. I'm not sure there's a correlation.
http://blog.pmarca.com/2009/07/introducing-our-new-venture-c...
Given the inaugural nature of that post and the new design, I'd say the site is being repurposed.