Anyone works/worked for a start-up firm?

[herfitup]

I've been with two that got bought out by bigger companies. The transition sucks and then it gets worse with the bureaucracy. I'm about ready to jump ship to another startup and I'm a lot older than you. The pay is better and the work is more interesting. Plus no more 1.5 percent pay increases. It is either zero of a lot more.

 

[Reggs]



Thank you for your thoughtful response. It's really interesting to hear your perspective and thought process as I can really relate to how you think about things. I also really respect the way you work with your reports in your department. It sounds like you're a pretty cool boss.

Three more follow-up questions:

1. Amongst the various CEOs you worked for, have you seen a correlation between their working styles / personalities and the overall success of the firm?

2. How do you deal with frustration / anger that arises on the moment when you're reacting to something, whether it be a work product that you're reviewing or a heated conversation with a peer? I guess what I'm trying to get at, is, I'm really trying to learn how to self-regulate and not let my emotions get in the way of how I communicate with others while dealing with conflict and I'm wondering if you do the same, and if so, how you successfully suppress negative emotions on-the-fly.

3. Do you mind telling me what department you work in? I vaguely recall your saying you work in Marketing in some post a long time ago, but just wanted to make sure. Do you ever dabble with Product Management by any chance?

Thanks again!

1. Absolutely. The best CEOs I have worked for have been obsessed with numbers. In a larger company, my boss was a GM and talked about numbers all day long. He was of an analytical education. He was a math major and could navigate business situations in a very logical manner, but he had a very human side. I admired him a lot. I worked for him when the economy was in the dumps and he worked long hours and had a lot of stress over raising margins by a few percent every quarter. The success was obvious, and the excitement of the work was in every hour for me. The CEO of the company had some masters in Business and Chem and was also focused in numbers. In the first start up I worked for, I was the numbers guy, but the CEO did not care. He did not care about numbers at all. Working for him was a social club and he employed people who wasted millions of dollars from the company. I dont think this CEO could have been surrounded by a great team and have succeeded. This business just kind of laggard on, and only in a market that was gushing money. The current CEO I work for does respond to numbers, but there are still problems. He gives way to very in your face people. My theory is because he was bullied as a kid. He likes to play a "Boss" but he has more than a few insecurities. I think good CEOs look at numbers every day. That alone is enough for a company to do well. The best CEOs value numbers more than anything, but have a very intelligent way of navigating politics.

2. This strikes a chord with me because I always want to improve myself in the same way. I never have these flashes of frustration with anyone in my department. With the CEO I have learned to hold my tongue and raise an objection in a very indirect way, as in "I feel it would be better if we..." rather than "This is wrong because...." That said, I have had instances when frustration arises with coworkers in other departments and have just mopped the floor with them. Not only did this shoot down a dumb idea, but it also made them give pause to pushing an agenda they knew I would object to, but it also made me look more commanding in front of other colleagues. I once got into it with the sales manager about something in a phone call. The conversation was an important one. I had the flashes of frustration and talked circles around him. From that point on he never confronted me in public but would do so in very underhanded ways to those above me. I could navigate it, but it was still constant conflict.

I don't think it's bad to have those flashes of frustration and anger. It's helped me in a lot of situations. I have never been that way with anyone in my department, and when I have been that way with a CEO it's more of less been a mistake. In my current job, I've had the angry moments with a coworkers and over some time, it's resulted in them shutting down when I first raise a concern. I still want to improve with it because I still react too strongly with my CEO every few months, and if I was in a larger company today with very codified politics, it might be too much. My ideal is to keep those instincts, but only show them with other colleagues, and only if it's to my department's benefit. I think the anger is best used in direct conflict where you need to win or make a colleague feel inferior, but concede in the end. All this said, if I took this same cloak and dagger approach in a larger company with very stable politics, who knows how I might preform?

3. I'm a marketing manager in this job and the last. In both my only manager was the CEO. In my current job I have taken over project management for two of three services and strongly influence the remaining one. My team does all of the digital marketing for them. I also do a lot of research to determine the development schedule. I also work on a lot on bids which I hate because it takes me away from marketing for too long. Because I sink into the numbers so much the CEO sees me on the only other one who sees the soul of the company, so I get roped into a lot of business governance work. In the next week I have to interview for a few positions that have no direct relation to my department and have to make a development plans that officially should be giving to their project managers, but the CEO wants me to do all of that. In Marketing, a lot of what we do is looking at our cost of acquisition for new customers, and weigh that against the lifetime value of customers. We only have loose numbers to get a vague sense of what the lifetime value of a customer is because we have a very half-assed CRM. So now my department is in charge of babysitting our developers into implementing a new CRM. I know once the numbers get found out, they will show that we have a huge customer retention problem, so now my department will oversee projects related to that, even though it should be left to operations. Despite what operations should be doing, customer service has an impact on retention. Should I make a power grab for customer service and control that knowing it will make my marketing dollars spent look more effective because of increased customer retention, or just leave it be because my department doesn't have have bandwidth to adopt another department?

Tonight after work I got a call from a former colleague who said that his current CEO of a mid sized tech company wanted to "have a conversation" with me. Wish me luck!

 

[GreenFrog]



...

Just saw this.



How did the call go?

I find it interesting how a lot of people who go into business aren't necessarily data-driven or "know" how to actually run a business. I think that's the biggest reason why a lot of businesses fail, and that the ones that do actually succeed are because the product / service they provide is so compelling and valuable that it in and of itself can mitigate against bad business decisions.

As for your point on how you treat your peers, sometimes with anger, don't you worry that could engender bad feelings, and as cliche as it sounds, hamper 'teamwork' and collegiality? What if you're creating enemies within the organization? I'd be worried about that, personally.

 

[Reggs]

My saving grace when it comes to anger with colleagues is that I'm more effective at convincing the CEO of my view, so if a conflict advances to that stage, I usually win. That said, if every conflict I'm involved with has to be appealed to him, then I'm labeled as a "difficult" employee. If I know I will conflict with an employee about an idea and he will just dig in and be stubborn, I will speak to the CEO first, convince him, then the CEO will give the order about how my department and my enemy's will work together to achieve the idea that I pitched to him in private, and my enemy will never know it was my idea to begin with. This works great, but if the CEO want's to add his own modification of my idea into the mix, I can do little more to but to be quiet and smile. This only works because my CEO is spontaneous enough to make a decision without the other department's involvement.

Another way I navigate it is if I have an enemy who is against me, but he is still logical. I have one such guy in development. We both have opposing ideas often. We both know that if the CEO becomes involved that he will be heavy handed and not understand the situation as intimately as we do. Neither of us want this. I will arrange private meetings with this enemy and even if we have opposing views, we will argue about how we will present "our idea," in harmony, to the CEO. The CEO will almost always give us our way if two heads of different departments are behind something, and my enemy know this, so we hate each other and have angry arguments, but we are diplomatic enough to have agreements to come out with a final collaboration we agree on.

This enemy and I came to this kind of cold relationship because once the CEO caught wind that our departments hated each other. I had a fear that the CEO would do something outlandish with how our departments interacted. That said I also realized that my enemy must of had the same fear. I went on a charm defensive and had absolutely no idea of any animosity, which made my enemy's fussing seem like petty bullshit. It threw cold water on the situation and my enemy looked like the aggressor, and from then on he had a fear in him. That's when I decided to talk to him in private and make deals before they ever reached the CEO. All these methods have served me well, but they might seem crazy to others. The metrics of my success are CPA, sales, and customer retention so I often have to push my ideas across the company just to take care of my own interests. I can't afford to leave my ideas to democracy. For someone who has their own department in a larger company, I'm not sure if this cloak and dagger stuff is strange or the standard.

The only times my anger has damaged me has been when I get angry at the CEO, and when I have trashed the overseas coworkers vocally in the office, and American coworkers in other departments told the overseas coworkers what I was saying. Both are stupid mistakes of mine.

No call yet. I'm so anxious! I'm going to send an email first thing in the morning so it's in the top of his inbox and I'll probably meet with him Tue or Wed. I know the conversation will go well. My only concerns are over what I might be paid. If I can't negotiate a good salary I want to negotiate something that correlates with increased sales, but I'm not sure how to phrase it accurately in writing, but I need to otherwise I might be screwed over. I'd also have 3 direct reports. 2 of them do not know me and might resent me for coming in out of no where and being their boss, and they are male so there might be an ego battle coming.

 

[iamacyborg]

That level of workplace politics sounds like absolute hell :\