4 Skills Founder CEOs Must Improve [Video]

Face­book
Twit­ter
LinkedIn

In this video, we’ll be talk­ing about how to close the founder to CEO skill gap.

Hi, my name is Vic­tor Cheng. I’m an exec­u­tive coach, founder of SaasCEO.com, and the author of the book Extreme Rev­enue Growth. Today, what I’ll be talk­ing about is answer­ing this one par­tic­u­lar ques­tion: “What sep­a­rates the founders in star­tups that make it to CEO as a com­pa­ny grows and scales ver­sus those that don’t?”

It’s a big issue in our field. A lot of pri­vate equi­ty firms con­fid­ed in me that they’re frus­trat­ed that half of their founders that they invest in need to be removed as the com­pa­ny grows because they can’t rise to the occa­sion and become the CEO that the busi­ness needs at that lev­el. They don’t want to remove the founder. It’s just that they’re not effec­tive any­more.

A lot of founders are very con­cerned that if they raise out­side cap­i­tal, they’re going to lose con­trol of their busi­ness and lose their job, and sort of sep­a­rate from the baby that they start­ed. So, this is an issue every­body talks around, but nobody talks specif­i­cal­ly about: What is the con­crete dif­fer­ence between founders that can make it to CEO ver­sus those who can­not? I call this dif­fer­ence, “The founder to CEO skill gap.”

Being a founder has a cer­tain set of skills. Being a CEO — whether a founder that ris­es to CEO or being hired as an out­side CEO — has a dif­fer­ent set of skills. I want to talk about what those dif­fer­ences are, and how you can, if you want to, close the gap from a founder to being a CEO.

Founders have a lot of strengths. They tend to be vision­ary, they’re great at being inno­v­a­tive, they have pas­sion, they’re fru­gal with cap­i­tal, and they real­ly cham­pi­on the com­pa­ny cul­ture. They’re fab­u­lous at that.

CEOs are quite dif­fer­ent. Their skills are focused around what I call “scale-rel­e­vant skills.” At $1 mil­lion in sales, that’s one kind of busi­ness. At $30 mil­lion in sales, that’s a dif­fer­ent kind of busi­ness. CEOs have skills that become increas­ing­ly rel­e­vant as the com­pa­ny gets big­ger. They tend to be more struc­tured, very dis­ci­plined.

There’s a time and place for all these skills. What I want to talk about today is: How do you close these two skill gaps?

The best com­pa­nies with the high­est val­u­a­tions, the high­est returns on invest­ments for the investors are those with founders that are able to rise to the occa­sion and close that founder to CEO skill gap.

Now, the premise of my talk today is that to scale your rev­enues, you must scale your skills as the leader of your com­pa­ny. It’s just not real­is­tic to expect your busi­ness to dou­ble, triple, quadru­ple in size when your skill lev­el does­n’t change dur­ing that entire time. So, that’s the premise of our talk today.

Let’s dive into it.

The Founder to CEO Skill Gap

There are about a dozen skills that founders lack and need to learn on their path to becom­ing CEO. I’m going to talk today about the four most com­mon skill gaps that I see most often in the founders that I work with.

Skill Gap #1: Decision-Making Approach

Founders and CEOs make deci­sions quite dif­fer­ent­ly. Let me explain.

Founders tend to be vision­ary, intu­itive, and oppor­tunis­tic. So, when a founder goes into a brand new mar­ket that has not yet emerged with a brand new com­pa­ny, there’s noth­ing to see. It’s lit­er­al­ly a blank piece of paper exter­nal to the com­pa­ny.

If you look at the com­pa­ny’s met­rics, there are no met­rics because the com­pa­ny does­n’t yet exist. So, you real­ly need, at this stage, vision. You’ve got to see what’s pos­si­ble, what’s going to emerge in the mar­ket­place and get ahead of it. You want to see what’s pos­si­ble with­in your com­pa­ny and get ahead of that. So, there’s a lot of sheer deter­mi­na­tion, vision, and willpow­er. It’s super, super impor­tant in the ear­ly stage.

Plus, you have to have great intu­ition. There’s noth­ing to ana­lyze in an emerg­ing mar­ket and in a brand-new com­pa­ny. So, founders need to be intu­itive. And they need to be oppor­tunis­tic because you don’t yet know what is going to work. You have to try lots of dif­fer­ent things.

Founders tend to say, “Yes, yes, yes.” They see an oppor­tu­ni­ty; they go after it. That’s their instinct.

CEOs, how­ev­er, are a lit­tle bit dif­fer­ent. They’re much more prag­mat­ic. They don’t care as much about chang­ing the world as mak­ing the quar­ter. They’re much more data-dri­ven.

If you think about it, it makes sense. As you get into the mid-sev­en fig­ures, and espe­cial­ly as you get into the eight- and nine-fig­ure busi­ness­es, there’s a lot more data to be ana­lyzed. CEOs, as a group, tend to be much bet­ter at ana­lyz­ing data. That’s impor­tant because as the busi­ness grows, it’s too hard to man­age just by look­ing around and look­ing over people’s shoul­ders — which is what a lot of founders typ­i­cal­ly are used to.

Final­ly, CEOs tend to be much more strate­gic. What I mean by that is that strat­e­gy is about mak­ing trade­offs. You can’t do every­thing. There is an oppor­tu­ni­ty cost to every deci­sion. Every yes means many dif­fer­ent nos. So, CEOs as a group, tend to be much bet­ter at say­ing no. They say no to a lot of things in order to say yes to the one or two things that are going to make the biggest dif­fer­ence.

The key point here is that nei­ther one is bet­ter than the oth­er. It’s more that as a busi­ness grows, the skillsets need­ed to run that size of busi­ness evolve over time. Ear­ly on, you want the vision­ary, intu­itive, and oppor­tunis­tic think­ing. Lat­er on, you want prac­ti­cal deci­sion-mak­ing that’s very data-dri­ven and strate­gic — being very mind­ful of the trade­offs.

Case Study #1

I had a client — clas­sic, clas­sic founder who start­ed three busi­ness­es, was start­ing the fourth busi­ness, and had plans in mind for the fifth and sixth busi­ness­es — who asked me to help and said, “Hey, I want your help in run­ning these busi­ness­es bet­ter.” And so, I asked for some data around these dif­fer­ent busi­ness­es so we can make a data-informed deci­sion. I was sort of teach­ing him CEO-lev­el skills as we were going through this process.

What’s real­ly fas­ci­nat­ing — this real­ly epit­o­mizes this dif­fer­ence between founder and CEO —  was that the busi­ness that he was most excit­ed about was the brand-new busi­ness that does­n’t exist yet. Because he’s a vision­ary, he sees things that oth­ers do not see. The busi­ness he was least excit­ed about was the one that was the biggest.

What was hap­pen­ing was that this busi­ness was about $10 mil­lion a year in sales, and it had a net rev­enue reten­tion rate of about 140%. What that means is that if you take all the cus­tomers in Jan­u­ary of a cal­en­dar year, kind of add up how much they spent, and you look at those exact same cus­tomers 11 months lat­er, in Decem­ber of the same cal­en­dar year, you com­pare how much they spent. In a busi­ness with 100% net rev­enue reten­tion, they spend the same amount. He had a busi­ness that it turned out had 140% net rev­enue reten­tion.

The fun­ny thing was when I asked him what his num­bers were, he did­n’t know. He had to go take a cou­ple days, go cal­cu­late it. He emailed this to me. When I heard this num­ber, I was shocked because 140% net rev­enue reten­tion is fab­u­lous.

If you look at com­pa­nies in SaaS (soft­ware as a ser­vice), in par­tic­u­lar, the com­pa­nies that are worth over a bil­lion dol­lars in mar­ket cap often have 140% net rev­enue reten­tion. So, I just did the math very quick­ly — because CEOs do math. They do cal­cu­la­tions. What I real­ized was his $10-mil­lion-a-year busi­ness was going to hit $100 mil­lion a year in rough­ly eight years, assum­ing he added no new cus­tomers and assum­ing the 140% net rev­enue reten­tion stayed con­stant.

This was a big rev­e­la­tion for him. He did not real­ize that he has a busi­ness that is going to have an enter­prise val­ue prob­a­bly north of $500 mil­lion in under a decade.

This real­ly epit­o­mized the dif­fer­ence between founder think­ing and CEO think­ing. And after I did the math with him, he got real­ly excit­ed about own­ing a busi­ness that was going to exceed $100 mil­lion a year in about eight years. That can be sped up by adding sales­peo­ple or spend­ing more time oper­at­ing the busi­ness.

I think the busi­ness had one or two sales­peo­ple, and this founder was spend­ing prob­a­bly a half a day a week run­ning this busi­ness. Now that he saw the oppor­tu­ni­ty, he was super excit­ed to invest more in that busi­ness.

So, this is a clas­sic, clas­sic exam­ple of the dif­fer­ence between founders and CEOs. And here’s the key take­away in all this. As com­pa­nies grow, CEO-type deci­sion-mak­ing becomes increas­ing­ly impor­tant and even­tu­al­ly essen­tial.

At a cer­tain size, it’s too hard to man­age the busi­ness pure­ly on intu­ition. You don’t see every­thing in the busi­ness. There are mul­ti­ple loca­tions. There are mul­ti­ple teams. There are mul­ti­ple lay­ers of man­age­ment — peo­ple report to the peo­ple that report to you, or maybe more lay­ers, and it becomes too com­pli­cat­ed. The skillset of man­ag­ing through data becomes an essen­tial part of the CEO skills.

Skill Gap #2: Process Maturity

The sec­ond skill gap is what I call “process matu­ri­ty.” Let me define what I mean by that.

A process is the steps tak­en to achieve a task or com­plete a task inside of a com­pa­ny. So, answer­ing the tele­phone — or that your recep­tion­ist answers the phone — is a process. You pick up the phone, you say, “Hel­lo, how may I direct your call?” So, that’s an exam­ple of a very sim­ple process.

Now, all process­es in a com­pa­ny, every piece of work, whether it’s doing qual­i­ty assur­ance for soft­ware, gen­er­at­ing leads, clos­ing a deal, or onboard­ing a cus­tomer, all those process­es can be grad­ed on a scale of imma­ture ver­sus mature. I call this “the process matu­ri­ty curve,” imma­ture on one end and mature on the oth­er end.

A clas­sic exam­ple, just to illus­trate the point, would be the exam­ple of an artist. An artist is supreme­ly tal­ent­ed at pro­duc­ing their work, which is like Leonar­do da Vin­ci. There’s one Mona Lisa. He’s clear­ly an artist. But it’s very imma­ture from a process stand­point because Leonar­do da Vin­ci can­not train oth­er peo­ple to be like him. It’s too dif­fi­cult. That process doesn’t scale very well.

On the oth­er end is a fac­to­ry, such as a poster-print­ing fac­to­ry, where you can train peo­ple to print out more posters of the Mona Lisa. It scales much bet­ter. So, the key point here is that process­es that are mature scale, process­es that are not do not scale.

The key insight here is that you want to turn your SaaS busi­ness into a fac­to­ry of sorts that pro­duces annu­al recur­ring rev­enue, real­ly attrac­tive gross mar­gins, and very high cus­tomer reten­tion rates.

So, if you think about your busi­ness as a fac­to­ry, on the input side of the busi­ness, you’re tak­ing the exec­u­tive team, a prod­uct, a go-to-mar­ket func­tion (like sales and mar­ket­ing), var­i­ous mature process­es (ide­al­ly), and cap­i­tal to pro­duce an out­put.

All fac­to­ries have inputs. They do some­thing with inputs, and they pro­duce an out­put. In the SaaS busi­ness, those out­puts are annu­al recur­ring rev­enue, gross mar­gins, reten­tion, very high net pro­mot­er scores, and very hap­py cus­tomers. So, inputs on one end, out­puts on the oth­er end.

Your objec­tive is to turn your SaaS busi­ness into a fac­to­ry of sorts that pro­duces annu­al recur­ring rev­enue, gross mar­gin, and high cus­tomer reten­tion, espe­cial­ly doing so in a way with very con­sis­tent and pre­dictable input-to-out­put ratios. So, a fac­to­ry that prints posters knows how much ink they need and how much paper they need to pro­duce how many units of the poster at the oth­er end of the fac­to­ry.

Every fac­to­ry has an input-to-out­put ratio. So, in a SaaS busi­ness, your inputs are your peo­ple and your cap­i­tal, and your prod­uct and the out­put are all these finan­cial met­rics.

For exam­ple, when you know that you can spend a mil­lion dol­lars on sales and mar­ket­ing and gen­er­ate $2 mil­lion of annu­al recur­ring rev­enue at 90% net rev­enue reten­tion and you’ve done it four quar­ters in a row, super con­sis­tent, you have a fac­to­ry, or a mature process in your SaaS busi­ness.

How Do You Determine if You Have a Mature Process?

How do you eval­u­ate whether you have a mature process? Well, the answer is that there’s a process for that, as you might imag­ine.

So, what I do is I like to score process­es or grade them on how mature or imma­ture they are. What I use is this process matu­ri­ty score­card that I’ve cre­at­ed to rate every process in the busi­ness from zero to six.

Here are the key cri­te­ria. There are six fac­tors. And if your answer is clos­er to the col­umn on the right, then you give your­self one point. If your answer is clos­er to the col­umn under imma­ture, then you don’t give your­self any points. Fives and six­es are very mature process­es. Zeros are very imma­ture process­es.

Founder to CEO Process Maturity Scorecard

Let’s look at each fac­tor one at a time.

1. Consistency of Results

Whether this is your prod­uct devel­op­ment team, your dev ops, your mar­ket­ing, your sales team, or your cus­tomer reten­tion team, if your results are very con­sis­tent, there’s a very high like­li­hood that you have a very mature process. So, give your­self one point. If you’re incon­sis­tent, no points.

2. Person Dependency

For exam­ple, in your cus­tomer onboard­ing depart­ment, does the suc­cess of those cus­tomers being onboard­ed vary a lot based on which spe­cif­ic indi­vid­ual in the depart­ment is doing the work? If it doesn’t mat­ter who does the work and you still get great results, then you’re per­son-inde­pen­dent. Give your­self one point.

If there’s high volatil­i­ty that if Mary does the onboard­ing work, com­pared to Bob, the cus­tomers that get onboard­ed by Mary do a lot bet­ter, if there’s that dif­fer­ence or dis­crep­an­cy, that’s a per­son-depen­dent process. There­fore, it is less mature. So, it’s zero points.

3. Documentation

How do you onboard a cus­tomer? If the process by which you get work done resides in a few people’s heads, that’s an imma­ture process because a new employ­ee can­not come on board, read the doc­u­men­ta­tion on how to do some­thing, and start being pro­duc­tive. They make too many errors because they don’t know what to do. So, if you have a doc­u­ment­ed process, give your­self anoth­er point.

4. New Employee Training

Is new employ­ee train­ing done by appren­tice­ship? “Hey, just join us. Fol­low me around for six months. You will even­tu­al­ly fig­ure it out, and then just do what I do.” That’s an appren­tice­ship train­ing mod­el. Zero points.

A more mature train­ing mod­el is to train peo­ple based on cur­ricu­lum. “These are the 15 things we do in this role. We’re going to teach it to you, we’re going to have you prac­tice it, and we’re going to do pro­fi­cien­cy test­ing at the end of train­ing to see if you got it. Then, we’re going to have you do your work with a super­vi­sor who is going to watch you do your work and coach you in that first sev­er­al weeks here.” That’s a more mature process.

4. Skill Level Required

Imma­ture process­es require a very high lev­el of skill of the employ­ees that are hired. Very mature process­es can require a low­er lev­el of skill. We’ll talk more about this in a sec­ond. If you have a low­er lev­el of skill need­ed to be effec­tive, then give your­self anoth­er point.

5. Decision-Making

If deci­sion-mak­ing is tied to one spe­cif­ic per­son — such as you, the founder, or one spe­cif­ic per­son, the head of a depart­ment — and every deci­sion is a judg­ment call, that is an imma­ture process. That’s a tell­tale sign of an imma­ture process.

On the oth­er hand, a mature process looks like this: 80% to 90% of deci­sions are dri­ven by poli­cies, deci­sion-mak­ing guide­lines, cri­te­ria, and check­lists. When all deci­sion-mak­ing can be exter­nal­ized out of one person’s head, and you still get the same deci­sion — as a sub­ject mat­ter expert would — you have a much more mature process.

Case Study #2

Let me give you a quick exam­ple. Years ago, I had clients in a wide vari­ety of fields and the great for­tune of hav­ing clients that owned a graph­ic design firm, and their mar­quee client was McDonald’s. They were hired to revise the Ham­burg­er Uni­ver­si­ty train­ing cur­ricu­lum for new fran­chisees that would then lat­er be used to train new employ­ees at new McDonald’s loca­tions.

McDonald’s had a very inter­est­ing require­ment of my for­mer clients. They were to revise the McDonald’s train­ing man­u­al at Aberdeen Uni­ver­si­ty, but they could not use any words in any known human lan­guage on Earth. And so, what they had to do was rewrite the entire train­ing cur­ricu­lum on how to make a Big Mac using just graph­ics and pic­tures and pic­tograms. In oth­er words, the Ham­burg­er Uni­ver­si­ty cur­ricu­lum became a lot more like an Ikea prod­uct assem­bly man­u­al.

I don’t know why McDonald’s asked them to do this, but I have some sus­pi­cions. My sus­pi­cion was that they were run­ning into a labor short­age prob­lem. To work at a McDonald’s, you need employ­ees that can fol­low instruc­tions and read the instruc­tions so they can fol­low them. They were run­ning out of peo­ple.

So, by tak­ing the train­ing cur­ricu­lum and remov­ing the lit­er­a­cy require­ment — whether that’s Eng­lish or Kore­an or Swahili — you have the abil­i­ty to take peo­ple who have a low­er skill lev­el and still have them be effec­tive at mak­ing Big Macs. A low­er skill lev­el means a high lev­el of process matu­ri­ty. So, that’s an exam­ple of mak­ing a process more mature.

Case Study #3

My next exam­ple or case study is look­ing at how dif­fer­ent kinds of busi­ness­es think about rev­enue.

In the soft­ware field, when a busi­ness reach­es, say, $80 mil­lion a year in recur­ring rev­enue, there’s a name that gets asso­ci­at­ed with that achieve­ment. It’s called “the uni­corn.” So, a uni­corn is a busi­ness with a mar­ket val­ue of over a bil­lion dol­lars. As you sort of hit that $80-mil­lion mark, peo­ple start using that term a lot to describe that kind of busi­ness. And a uni­corn is just like this mon­u­men­tal achieve­ment. You’ve reached the pin­na­cle of your career as a founder if you’ve run a uni­corn busi­ness.

Now, in con­trast, Star­bucks has a very dif­fer­ent word when their busi­ness achieves $80 mil­lion in rev­enue. That word is “Just anoth­er Tues­day.”

You see, Star­bucks gen­er­ates $80 mil­lion in sales every sin­gle day of the year. You nev­er hear about it in the head­lines. The rea­son why is because it’s a rou­tine. It’s not a hero­ic effort to gen­er­ate $80 mil­lion in a sin­gle 24-hour peri­od. They do it every day. It is rou­tine. In fact, it’s bor­ing.

So, the dif­fer­ence here is process matu­ri­ty. Star­bucks has a process to man­age all 360,000 employ­ees they have across how many coun­tries, I have no idea, to pro­duce $80 mil­lion in sales every sin­gle day. That’s a high degree of process matu­ri­ty.

How to Achieve Process Maturity

Let’s talk about three ways you can acquire process matu­ri­ty in your busi­ness.

1. Hire Leaders with Process Expertise

If you take out­side cap­i­tal, one of the first things your investors will insist that you do is to fill lead­er­ship gaps. If you don’t have sea­soned peo­ple in all the key func­tion­al areas, they’re going to make you hire them, recruit them to round out the team.

One of the rea­sons is because new lead­ers, espe­cial­ly those that have expe­ri­ence at the next one or two stages of growth that you have not yet achieved, when they have that kind of expe­ri­ence, they bring with it process matu­ri­ty. So, how you man­age a 100-per­son soft­ware devel­op­ment team is quite dif­fer­ent than how you man­age a five-per­son soft­ware devel­op­ment team. The amount of coor­di­na­tion, stan­dard­iza­tion, poli­cies, and pro­ce­dures acquired is very, very dif­fer­ent and much more com­pli­cat­ed as you get big­ger. The same is true with mar­ket­ing. The same is true with sales. The same is true with legal. Every func­tion­al area gets more com­pli­cat­ed as you grow. So, hire out­side lead­ers who have that process exper­tise.

2. Outsource

If you don’t have a great process for doing some­thing, you want to ask your­self, “Can I just rent some­body else’s process instead?”

For exam­ple, cut­ting pay­roll checks. If you’re not real­ly great at run­ning a pay­roll process, why not hire or out­source to an ADP. They’ve cut bil­lions and bil­lions of pay­roll checks. They’re real­ly, real­ly good at it. They’re effi­cient. They have tech­nol­o­gy. It’s a very mature and sophis­ti­cat­ed process. So, if you don’t want to cre­ate it in-house, send it and out­source it.

3. Increase the Maturity of Existing Processes

The third way is to increase the matu­ri­ty of process­es that are exist­ing with­in the com­pa­ny right now. Let’s talk more about that.

There are sev­en steps to improve process matu­ri­ty with­in a spe­cif­ic process that you have. So, I’m gonna go through all sev­en steps, and we’ll talk about this a lit­tle bit more.

Seven Steps to Improve Process Maturity

Step num­ber one is to iden­ti­fy the best per­former. I’ll give you an exam­ple. I had a client who was try­ing to improve cus­tomer reten­tion and reduce cus­tomer churn. In ana­lyz­ing his churn num­bers, he noticed that the major­i­ty of the churn hap­pened in the first year. When he fur­ther ana­lyzed and broke it down by quar­ter, he noticed that the major­i­ty of the first-year churn with cus­tomers leav­ing and can­cel­ing occurred in the first 90 days. That’s a use­ful insight. CEOs look at the big num­bers and get more spe­cif­ic into try­ing to find the root cause.

This CEO, he went even fur­ther. He looked at his four- or five-per­son cus­tomer-onboard­ing team and looked at the reten­tion rates of the new cus­tomers that went through these var­i­ous dif­fer­ent employ­ees. What he noticed was that there was quite a bit of vari­ance. One per­son on that team per­formed a lot bet­ter than the oth­er three or four. The new cus­tomers that were onboard­ed by one indi­vid­ual tend­ed to have a much bet­ter reten­tion rate than the oth­ers. And so, he was super curi­ous. So, he did step one of this process. He iden­ti­fied the best per­former on a team.

The sec­ond thing he did was observe: What did she do dif­fer­ent­ly than the oth­er peo­ple on the team? Once he fig­ured that out, he doc­u­ment­ed those find­ings. And then, you want to switch every­one on that team to the new­ly doc­u­ment­ed best prac­tice.

Step five is to hire and train new employ­ees to use this process that is now doc­u­ment­ed, that is proven to work. And step six is to ver­i­fy every­one is using the new process. Just because you’ve fig­ured out what works bet­ter, don’t assume everyone’s going to imme­di­ate­ly embrace it, you need that ver­i­fi­ca­tion process. This is the core six steps of improv­ing a process.

The sev­enth step is to exper­i­ment — to take one or two peo­ple on your team, to try to find a bet­ter way of doing things, to find the next per­son that out­per­forms every­body else. And then you repeat the first six steps all over again.

I’ll give you the insight from my client. What he noticed was that the onboard­ing spe­cial­ists that out­per­form all oth­ers — at least in this par­tic­u­lar indus­try for this par­tic­u­lar com­pa­ny with these kinds of cus­tomers — asked one ques­tion that the oth­er three to four onboard­ing spe­cial­ists did not. She asked the cus­tomer, “What is your goal? What do you want to accom­plish with our soft­ware? What would be a good win that if we achieved the next 30 days, you would be thrilled?”

Then, what she would do is she would sim­pli­fy the train­ing process to just teach the cus­tomer how to achieve his or her objec­tive. All the oth­er onboard­ing spe­cial­ists were not ask­ing about the goal and were teach­ing the cus­tomer how to do every­thing in their very sophis­ti­cat­ed, very com­pli­cat­ed soft­ware.

What my client fig­ured out was, cus­tomers don’t like feel­ing over­whelmed. And so, the major­i­ty of cus­tomers were feel­ing over­whelmed by the pow­er of what the soft­ware could do, and they didn’t know where to start. It was too much. So, what they did to get rid of that feel­ing of dis­com­fort, of being over­whelmed, is they can­celled the soft­ware sub­scrip­tion.

This doesn’t mean this always works. It doesn’t mean it’ll work in your busi­ness or your indus­try, but it’s some­thing to test. More impor­tant­ly, they have this process of exper­i­men­ta­tion, find­ing your win­ners, your process win­ners that are more effec­tive, and then stan­dard­iz­ing across them. So, these are the sev­en steps to bring process matu­ri­ty to any process, and this is an essen­tial CEO-lev­el skill.

Skill Gap #3: Disciplined Execution

So, we talked about the deci­sion-mak­ing process as our first skill gap. Our sec­ond skill gap was process matu­ri­ty. Now let’s talk about the third skill gap I see between founders ver­sus founders that make it to CEO, and that is dis­ci­plined exe­cu­tion. Let me define what I mean by that.

Dis­ci­plined exe­cu­tion is the art and sci­ence of get­ting things done in an order­ly way with con­sis­tent qual­i­ty, quan­ti­ty, and tim­ing. So, here’s the ques­tion: “How do you cre­ate that dis­ci­plined exe­cu­tion in your busi­ness?” Well, the answer is, there’s a process for that, too.

Are you see­ing a theme here? There’s a process to do these high-lev­el skills. Let’s talk about that.

There are six steps to cre­at­ing dis­ci­plined exe­cu­tion for every role in your com­pa­ny. 

Six Steps to Disciplined Execution

The first thing you need are goals. Every role in your com­pa­ny requires a goal.

Now, imag­ine if you hired a bunch of archers, and you don’t give them tar­gets with bullseyes to aim toward. If you don’t give them some­thing to aim for, you have no rea­son­able expec­ta­tion that they should hit it. They’ve got to know what they’re aim­ing for or what they’re try­ing to accom­plish.

The sec­ond thing you need is mea­sure­ment. You need some way to tell your employ­ees how close they are or are not to their goals. So, if you have sales­peo­ple, they need a quo­ta. If there’s no quo­ta, don’t expect them to hit it. And if they have a quo­ta but you don’t tell them what they’ve closed, they’re kind of fly­ing blind.

It’s like hav­ing a bunch of archers with a tar­get in front of them, and then you blind­fold them so that if they miss, they don’t know. Did they miss to the right? Did they miss to the left? Were they too high? Or were they too low? Did they miss by a lit­tle or did they miss by a lot? That feed­back loop is impor­tant, and that feed­back loop only exists if there’s a mea­sure­ment sys­tem in place for every role in your com­pa­ny.

The third step you need to do is to cre­ate account­abil­i­ty. When some­body miss­es their goal — because now it’s mea­sured and tracked — some­one else — man­age­ment, exec­u­tive man­age­ment, the CEO — must notice. Some­thing has to hap­pen as a result of the miss.

If peo­ple miss their tar­gets and noth­ing hap­pens as a result, peo­ple will keep miss­ing their tar­gets. It’s just that sim­ple. So, one of two things has to hap­pen. Either step four, trou­bleshoot­ing: “You missed your sales tar­get. How come? Let’s inves­ti­gate.” That becomes a very impor­tant process. Or step five, coach­ing: “We know what you missed. You weren’t doing it prop­er­ly. Let me tell you how to do it bet­ter. You did it this way. I need you to do it that way. Here are the three spe­cif­ic things that are dif­fer­ent between the way you did it ver­sus the way I want you to do it.” That’s coach­ing. That too is a skill and is required in order to have dis­ci­plined exe­cu­tion in any par­tic­u­lar role or any par­tic­u­lar team.

And the sixth step is to remove poor per­form­ers. Some peo­ple are just a mis­match for the role. They can be great at some­thing else, but not this role. So, if you iden­ti­fied what’s wrong, you tried to coach them, it’s not effec­tive, you’ve got to remove them out of the role. It’s as sim­ple as that.

Now, of this, num­ber four is an inter­est­ing step — trou­bleshoot­ing. I think a lot of founders missed this step and aren’t real­ly great at it. Some­times, when peo­ple miss, it’s for rea­sons not direct­ly with­in their con­trol.

So, I’ll give you sort of an over­sim­pli­fied exam­ple. If you’re talk­ing to your sales team and your head of sales, and you real­ize every employ­ee missed their sales quo­ta in that team, you want to ask why.

Maybe, as you inves­ti­gate or trou­bleshoot, you real­ize that the Salesforce.com sys­tem wasn’t work­ing prop­er­ly, or the dig­i­tal vir­tu­al tele­phone sys­tem was down. And so, cus­tomers could call in, but the sales­peo­ple couldn’t answer the phone for five days out of the month. They missed their sales tar­gets because of that.

In that case, by mak­ing the sales­force account­able, they’re going to iden­ti­fy obsta­cles that are else­where in the com­pa­ny. In this par­tic­u­lar instance, the IT team was not sup­port­ing the sales team prop­er­ly. Then, you can go trou­bleshoot that team to see if they have goals, if there’s a way of mea­sur­ing their progress against their goals, and if there is account­abil­i­ty when they miss their tar­get.

One of the great ben­e­fits of hav­ing account­abil­i­ty and putting pres­sure on teams to deliv­er is that they will be very hon­est and can­did about what’s get­ting in their way. Because of the pres­sure, they’re wor­ried about get­ting fired, so they’re very vocal about what else is wrong in the busi­ness. It helps you fix prob­lems that were oth­er­wise beneath the sur­face and not quite so obvi­ous.

So, this dis­ci­plined exe­cu­tion process either gives you great results or it flush­es out the hid­den prob­lems in your com­pa­ny so they’re above the sur­face and can be dealt with rather than hid­den. If you don’t hold peo­ple account­able, they won’t tell you what else is wrong, and you’ll just con­stant­ly miss for lots of dif­fer­ent rea­sons and be incon­sis­tent across the board. So, dis­ci­pline exe­cu­tion is very, very impor­tant.

Here’s why some founders find dis­ci­plined exe­cu­tion dif­fi­cult. A lot of peo­ple who become entre­pre­neurs and start­up founders, they do so because they don’t want to work for ‘the man,’ which is this metaphor for this high­er author­i­ty fig­ure that makes you show up on time, do things a cer­tain way, and doesn’t allow you to be cre­ative. They just want you to do cer­tain things a cer­tain way. And then, the great irony in all this is, you become the start­up founder so you don’t have to have all this rigid dis­ci­pline. But if you’re suc­cess­ful, you now have to become the CEO that now has to impose this dis­ci­pline on every­body else.

So, if you don’t like dis­ci­pline, and that’s why you’re a founder, it’s very chal­leng­ing to make the leap to CEO because you have to use dis­ci­pline con­stant­ly, day in, day out.

Here’s why dis­ci­plined exe­cu­tion mat­ters a lot. Dis­ci­plined exe­cu­tion leads to pre­dictable and con­sis­tent results. This, in turn, leads to reduc­ing risk, which leads to a high­er val­u­a­tion mul­ti­ple.

So, the bot­tom line is, you make more mon­ey when there’s dis­ci­plined exe­cu­tion. When you have out­side investors, they want dis­ci­plined exe­cu­tion because they’ll get a greater return on their invest­ment. Now, you, as a share­hold­er, are going to ben­e­fit a lot more at a cer­tain stage when there’s more dis­ci­plined exe­cu­tion in your busi­ness.

Skill Gap #4: Compensating for Weaknesses

Let’s talk about skill gap num­ber four. So, num­ber one was deci­sion-mak­ing approach, skill gap num­ber two was process matu­ri­ty, skill gap num­ber three is dis­ci­plined exe­cu­tion, and skill gap num­ber four is com­pen­sat­ing for weak­ness­es.

Now, good CEOs are self-aware of their weak­ness­es, and there are three ways to com­pen­sate for your weak­ness: 1) You can hire insid­ers to do the things you’re bad at; 2) You can hire out­siders in order to take care of those things you’re poor at; or 3) You can work on improv­ing your weak­ness­es.

So, let me stop here for a sec­ond. If you are bad at cer­tain things, every CEO is bad at some­thing, even the suc­cess­ful ones. It’s not that they’re good at every­thing, it’s that they real­ize what they are bad at, and they fill their gaps in this way.

When I talk about this idea of these four skill gaps between founder and CEO, what a lot of founders have said to me after I sort of talk about this idea is, they won­der if they should con­tin­ue on in their com­pa­ny as the leader. If you’re not great at process matu­ri­ty, if the idea of dis­ci­plined exe­cu­tion makes you want to vom­it, then you may not be the right per­son to become CEO of the busi­ness, and it might make sense for you to hire some­one else to do that.

Or, if you are able to step back from your per­son­al bias­es, maybe you per­son­al­ly don’t like dis­ci­pline, but the role of CEO requires dis­ci­pline, and so if you’re will­ing to let go of your past to become what the busi­ness needs now, you can also make that tran­si­tion and stay on and become a founder-CEO.

So, that’s a real­ly fun­da­men­tal ques­tion. You’ve got to decide: Which path do you want? And to improve your weak­ness, it’s real­ly just two steps: aware­ness of where you are weak and search­ing for some resource to com­pen­sate for where you’re weak. Whether that is you’re look­ing for a new hire to replace your­self as CEO, or maybe you’re weak in finance and you want to hire a CFO, or you’re weak in tech­nol­o­gy and you want to hire a chief tech­nol­o­gy offi­cer. If that is what your weak­ness is, you do want to do that prob­a­bly soon­er rather than lat­er.

For exam­ple, if you’re not great in finance, you’re prob­a­bly going to need a finance resource ear­li­er than oth­er founders that have some back­ground in finance. So, what you need and when you need it is going to be deter­mined, in part, by what you are weak at and what you are good at. Hir­ing out­side ven­dors and con­sul­tants are also oth­er resources that good CEOs are always search­ing for.

And the last one is learn­ing resources. The good CEOs are, frankly, doing all three of these. They’re con­stant­ly recruit­ing for new hires, they’re con­stant­ly look­ing for sup­pli­ers, ven­dors, and con­sul­tants that can fill cer­tain gaps that they need at that moment in time, and they’re always learn­ing new skills in order to be more effec­tive.

Speak­ing of learn­ing resources, I want to intro­duce you to the resource page at SaasCEO.com. If you found today’s video and pre­sen­ta­tion help­ful, you’re real­ly going to love all the resources avail­able at SaasCEO.com/resources. Thanks for watch­ing and have a great day.

Here are my slides from the pre­sen­ta­tion in PDF:

How to Close the Founder to CEO Skill Gap slides.pdf

Additional Resources

If you enjoyed this arti­cle, I rec­om­mend join­ing my email newslet­ter. You’ll be noti­fied when I pub­lish oth­er arti­cles and help­ful guides for improv­ing your SaaS busi­ness. Sub­mit the form below to sign up. Also, use the email icon below to share this arti­cle with some­one else who might find it use­ful.

If you’re the founder and CEO of a SaaS com­pa­ny look­ing for help in devel­op­ing a dis­tri­b­u­tion chan­nel strat­e­gy, please Click Here for more info.

Yes, I want to receive free arti­cles on
How to Scale and Grow a SaaS Busi­ness
 
First Name *
Email *

This form col­lects your email so that we can send you the free mate­ri­als you request­ed. Check out our Pri­va­cy Pol­i­cy for details on how we pro­tect and man­age your sub­mit­ted data.

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
author avatar
Vic­tor Cheng
Author of Extreme Rev­enue Growth, Exec­u­tive coach, inde­pen­dent board mem­ber, and investor in SaaS com­pa­nies.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top