
Not long ago, I was asked: “Why do founders often fail as CEOs?” A rather provocative question. I wouldn’t go as far as to say founders often fail as CEOs as a blanket statement. Equally so, the question isn’t “why”, but “where”. People can “fail” in their positions for any number of reasons. “Why” is simply that they didn’t perform well under the expectations of the role. The better question comes down to “where” might they need to watch out for. Still so, there are many. But one that often catches founders by surprise is: the (in)ability to scale themselves with the company.
Founders often make great CEOs at the beginning. What Iโve seen and heard more of is the inability of founders to scale at the same pace as their company. As the company grows, the job description of the CEO changes as well. The same is true for all executive/leadership positions in a company. Something I personally love is at Shopify, every year the executives have to requalify for the position they hold, and that includes the CEO.
In the early stages, the CEO is a maker. They’re the most obsessed about the problem space. Their main job is to get the product to market. And test if it resonates. They get shit done. As the company scales (post product/market fit), the CEO is a manager. They’re no longer working on the daily/weekly updates of the product at a granular level, but making sure the entire organization functions as a well-oiled machine. How can the CEO enable their team members to be greater than the sum of their parts? To quote Paul Graham of Y Combinator, itโs the difference betweenย the makerโs schedule and the managerโs schedule.
When youโre a small team of 5 or even 20, youโre the product lead. You decide the direction in which the product will go and youโre involved in the day-to-day nuances of the product itself, from the UI/UX to talking to customers to discover pain points, etc. When the company grows to 50 – give or take, you have already hired or are going to hire your first product manager, which means you wonโt be involved in the day-to-day anymore, but rather in the larger strategic directions of the company and the product. As a maker, your decisions are tactical. On the other hand, as a manager, your decisions are strategic.
Similarly, Ben Horowitz, the second name in the investment firm, Andreessen Horowitz, wrote aboutย peacetime and wartime CEOs. In the early days of a company, youโre at war. You’re selling; you’re networking. Youโre fighting in a competitive market of attention. Not only from your customers, but also potential hires and investors. As your company scales past $100M ARR (among any of the other heuristics when you stop being a โstartupโ), youโre now a category leader and possibly a market leader as well. As the market leader in “peacetime”, you decide the rules of the game. You’re working to maintain your market position. You focus on the masses, and not the niches as much. And therefore, the job description of a leader born in an era of war is different from a leader born to maintain peace.
Many founding CEOs understand that their role will evolve over time, but unfortunately, many are still unable to keep up with the pace at which the company evolves. Effectively, CEOs have to always be one step ahead of the companyโs growth to prepare the infrastructure for the rest of the team to grow into.
Photo by Patrick Tomasso on Unsplash
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!










