Up until the point that Doug said "this is riveting" (sarcastically) I was actually really enthralled. I absolutely LOVE getting to see the organizational thought process and discussion behind building a mega-successful company. Thank you for sharing these pieces.
this episode of Wyrm Lyfe is the best episode to ever exist so far. i would cautiously say it's so good, that it doesn't even read as the next installment of continuous narrative, or youtube content. comes off more as a piece of a William Becket, or Sam Shepard play....and of course the modernist absurdist comedy editing is chef's kiss. i think atm the board being Ian, Doug, Jason, and Ed is small enough and has such a long standing history between each other and the company that all CEO decisions can be run democratically as majority rule. the PA people like James and Kelli should be in consideration to join that board with all equal standing voice....i mean hell, if movies taught me anything it's that this idea works for pirates...plus having a singular CEO gives a greater chance of Putney Swope'ing it.
I know how late this comment is, this is like my 5th time binge watching wyrmlyfe... All that being said, I need to get something off of my chest. If Waldman were to be the CEO, Wyrmwood would become such a bigger and more profitable company, not even having the need for kickstarter. In the process half of the workers would be laid off, all the gaming accessories would disappear and the furnitures would be made of plywood and MDF...
One of the reasons why you guys have grown so fast and done so well is because you're willing to sit down and have these conversations. You're more concerned about doing a good job than about having a title or bossing people around. Don't bother trying to do things the way others do them just because 'everyone does it that way.' Screw that. Stay flexible and you'll be better at dealing with shit that crops up along the way.
Jason’s point about invested authority is super relevant; CEO derives their ability to steer the ship from the leaders implementing the high level vision. The leads need to take the role seriously if they want the role to have function. If that platform for leading by authority is not taken seriously by the leads, then the CEO is an individual contributor leading by influence, which is what we see (on Wyrmlife) and that’s a lot less efficient (but more collaborative). Just saying “no no, we take you seriously” doesn’t fix the investiture issue which impacts how effective a CEO can be. Someone who is charged with “Executive” decision making needs their decisions to be implemented quickly and it’s their responsibility to make data-driven decisions that are right, most often, even if it’s not the obvious or intuitive path. Wyrmwood (through the lens of Wyrmlife) does not take the CEO role seriously, treating it more like a tie-breaker role. This is ok, but makes any incoming CEO’s life harder than it needs to be unless they are forceful personality.
You can have Doug be CEO in title for the sake of it. The Board idea is still a solid option because it helps ground the CEO along with making sure that all the heads of the departments are properly heard. So long as you properly implement a Board in a way that benefits WyrmWood, I'm sure you guys will be perfectly fine. Technically, you guys already have a "Board" with the main heads from Wyrm Lyfe we get to see. You guys are the most open and willing-to-listen heads of a company I've seen. Just keep them together when they need to be. You're doing fine. :3
This is why you have a board of directors who vote on a direction, and a CEO who executes on that direction. Choose who should be on that board of directors (preferably they should reflect various sections of the company) and convene every 3/6/12 months and evaluate your direction, progress, and goals. Vote on if you continue that direction or need change. CEO's vote is the tie break in the rare case you need it, but decisions should in general be made via consensus and compromise rather than hard line voting. The CEO doesn't need to be the "source" of your companies vision or direction, he just needs to be someone able to execute on it.
Doug was and is CEO. Titles change but the leadership, creativity and drive stay the same. Such an amazing group of people assembled...but only one true leader. As Jeff Winger said "I don't step up to being a leader, I reluctantly accept it when it is thrust upon me" #theleaderyouneed
I mean it sounds like you're moving towards having an executive board for decision making and then, possibly, just having a designated "tie-breaker" CEO who doesn't necessarily have overall operational responsibility beyond the scope of their particular department
They don't even need a designated tie breaker if the Board is always an uneven number. They've got Doug, Jason, Ian, and Ed already. Maybe it would be easier to convince Karen to join if she weren't the sole CEO, but was just the 5th member of the Board. She'd still be at the top and have the ability to steer the company, but the full responsibility of the company would not be entirely on her either.
You don't have to have a CEO. There are other ways to manage a company. Presidents / Principles / Partners / etc. Look up the Swedish Company where nobody is in charge. Hierarchy reduces collaboration and Wyrmwood is a company of collaboration, despite it seeming like Doug makes all the decisions. Also, how will the employee's who voiced their concern about Doug's leadership be considered or treated? Talk to Frank, there are other ways to structure a company.
I think this is a great comment. I can also hear Jasons concern about direction switching rapidly and not committing to one direction. It should be someone's job on the board to define that direction. Maybe that's the change that convinces Karren to join
Right, having a board driven driver of the company does not preclude a consistent vision. Get the members of the board to collaborate on a few key things: 1. A Mission Statement - This is the overall vision that should drive what happens. 2. A FY Roadmap - What are the key things for the year. 3. A Quarterly Roadmap - Within the FY - what needs to happen each quarter. Then you adjust things as new things come up or as things are realized to be infeasible, but you still have that overall vision set for at least a 1 year time frame.
I'll definitely second talking to Frank, especially since the decision was made to put off the final decision a few months, see what his suggestions are.
"Look up the Swedish Company where nobody is in charge. " OK, so I did this... for the benefit of others the company in question is Crisp. The 1 thing I see that REALLY needs to be called out is Crisp has a grand total of 40 staff. They are a SMALL COMPANY, like Wyrmwood used to but is no longer. They're also a software consultancy... which just happens to also be my industry. Software consultancies are somewhat... weird. They're very often small, have low overheads, & most of the work they do isn't for themselves, since a majority of folks doing the work that earns the company bread are doing said work for OTHER companies. Often this leads to a weird dichotomy where there is a disconnect between the home office & the consultants, with the worst case being the consultants can basically forget who they actually work for. Suffice to say, it doesn't line up with WW's current situation very well.
I can completely sympathise. Our company has grown from 2 designers ( from 2010-2020) when our owner COVI-closed it and we were bought out... and expanded to 6 designers, a production shop and 2 crews of 4 -- designing and building our clients homes and renovations. I, for 10yrs -- and the previous 20 before that was -- DESIGNER -- my passion -- and now have been thrown into the "manager" -- and hating it.... but thus is the cost of growth. I guess
It actually is a little riveting, its super interesting getting a real life look inside an actual functioning company and seeing how this type of thing works, its sort of like actually good realty TV, its not scripted, its just this is a thing that's happening about people and a company we (I?) care about.
I mean all signs point to 2 options in my head, Either Doug is CEO because let's face it you're the best choice or you could also go in the direction of no CEO. Sure give someone the "title" but there's so many companies that run based on a board rather than one person. Which I feel suits Wyrmwood a lot better. It's like everything I see wrong in my company you guys are doing the right things because you don't stick to some "that's how it's been that's how it's going to be" mindsets. You're free-flowing thinkers doing what's logically the best decision for your company. Which in my opinion is your company's biggest strength. There's no reason Doug can't be the one to corral people, Jason takes control over the products, Ian takes control over the production, and Waldman takes control of the finances. Then anytime there's a major decision you all come together and make that decision from every aspect of the company. Idk in my eyes, its either Doug or a Board the only thing I see in between is hiring from outside the company and good luck with the current work climate because they will have major leverage on their pay/benefits. .
A CEO puts people in positions they are best at and is only really there to keep them from flying off the rails. Also, the best CEO's are inspirational and empowering.
In Italy a CEO or Managing Director is know as "Amministratore Delegato", which I feel is a little more flexible if you accept a more direct translation of "Delegated Administrator". Their role in corporate evironments is less about handling everything, but being the administrative figurehead as required by the Board. Wyrmwood seems to work better as a networked leadership that works well. You need the guidance of a figurehead to push for the big objectives, but you don't need it to try crazy "rule-breaking" things and see how they work out. HR doesn't need the CEO to deal with HR things, they do need the CEO to sign off on bigger company-impacting changes. Engineering doesn't need the CEO to do engineering, they need the CEO to sign off on buying new machines. You're essentially already doing this as a "Board" and only need the formality of a CEO if you want it and to better unify a vision under a figurehead. Stay awesome folks! (Edited for typos)
Head of The Board, President, CEO, these are all titles for basically the same thing. All a good CEO does is get the right people together for the job. It doesn't mean they can't help, but they need to be available to put out fires and keep the big picture coming together. If they run a department, they can't easily pivot. An option is to have that single organizer, but shift the primary leader as projects demand. Whatever the titles are, you have 1 person who is checking on all teams to ensure they have the resources and a floating leader driving the primary focus for whatever amount of time. After that time, the leader can change to the person who is best for that next multi-team focus. None of you really want the title. It can be stressful. Few like administrations. Committing to a set amount of time can make it a little easier.
i mean... you could just have a worker co-operative... you know... that thing you said was working so well when you were doing it before. company meetings and votes being the decision making force behind the company. because you have such great people that all love the company and can make it great.
Jason could be Chief Product Officer. Head of design and engineering. Those teams (design and engineering) may still work separately, but the Chief Product Officer guides the design of the brand and makes sure the output meets the expected quality.
You should make a big really blingy and gaudy CEO pin, to be worn by whomever is the current interim CEO, so everyone in the company and everyone watching wyrmlife knows who's currently "in charge".
From what we see in WyrmLife, I don't think Doug stopped being CEO. He, and Ian, and Ed, and Jason all have authority (and will always have it, no matter their titles), which is earned because they are good at what they do. I think you shouldn't try to necessarily chase the Unicorn that is the perfect CEO for Wyrmwood. I think it's right that you should have it, as an end of the chain of responsibility, but that doesn't have to mean more than that. The board runs Wyrmwood, and Doug is the tie-breaker.
Doug never stopped being the CEO as he controls the purse strings. I remember Jason having to ask him on a previous episode for approval on some cutting bits.
... sit stand desk? SIT STAND DESK?!? SIGN ME UP!!! Also, sounds like you need Co-CEO. The roles of CEO are split between a couple of people. Or the title of CEO is Doug's but then his deputy (for the design/company direction stuff) is Jason.
Doug can't be that singularity of power, because Doug is the one that needs to be told "no" the most. Jason is very good at that. That said, if "the brain trust" just makes collective decisions together like it appears they do, does it really change anything? Just make it a collective that votes on things, and give Jason (as the person who seems to have the most reserved and grounded sense of what's what) veto power.
Having founded and sold several companies, I've seen this happen multiple times. Rarely does the personality and drive of a founder, translate into a person who can manage a company at scale. You have a couple options, find a person with experience running a company and bring them onboard as CEO/President. The issue is that kind of person's vision can often conflict with founders. Second, find yourself a President. Most people think the CEO runs the company and that is true in very small companies, but the actual person who manages and runs the company is the President. Depending on the size of the company, the President is like the shop manager, their job is to ensure day to day operations and running, interface with all division managers and make sure they are on task and their needs are being properly communicated with other managers. They typically have no involvement in the "vision" of the company, like a CEO would. Shopping for a President is a lot easier than a CEO, because their job is a lot more focused towards managing the managers and interfacing with outside business.
Yeah there are too many sections to the company to not have someone in charge of coordinating them and making sure that each one is getting the resources they need. A board would have a hard time keeping on top of that effectively.
@@randyward2766 all of the positions at different companies can sometimes have different tasks. Generally a COO is a position found in the manufacturing sector, but other types of companies have them too. If a company has a President they often have a VP of Operations, but in this case with a CEO and a COO, the Chief Operations Officer most likely has Managers in the different manufacturing departments reporting to him. Ian as COO in the video seems pretty hands-on, meaning that he's often on the floor dealing with manufacturing issues with people that his managers handle. What he's likely mostly doing is the planning and implementation of the tasks laid down by Doug and Jason as well as reporting estimated times and costs. Once things start rolling, he observes and tweeks the process through his managers to meet the goals based on the company's needs. Each project starts, continues and completes at different times so he'd be doing these things at the same time at different points within the process. So, it's likely he doesn't ever design or plan the projects, but he manages them and sees them to fruition. But his focus is on utilization of personnel, machinery, materials, power, space etc. rather than on vision, design, creation etc.
@@fakjbf3129 "A board would have a hard time keeping on top of that effectively." Why? & why do you think an individual would handle that better than a group? I'll grant you a group of people has to setup meetings, which takes coordination, but they have the advantage of multiple people to manage the multiplicity of details.
From the sounds of it you just need a leadership team where everyone has their role of leader of departments in the company(bobby as Chief Media Officer, Jason as Chief Design Officer...) Then there is a chairman of the team who makes sure there is communication and focus in the leadership team. basically a CEO who doesnt lead the company but make sures the leaders of the company are leading.
I don't get why so many are saying Doug was a great CEO. He literally quit in a fit of pique when his employees asked for changes he didn't like, some of which (health insurance, compliance with safety regulations) are required by law. Yes, Doug hates regulation based on his experiences trying to build a house, but that won't fly especially when it affects others. And if you would rather throw a tantrum rather than respectfully respond to your employee's complaints...that's not a great CEO.
Well, he was a great CEO when the company was smaller. That is what a lot of folks don't get... every company is different & bigger companies are different from smaller companies. Doug's kind of drive & involvement is GREAT in a smaller company... but in larger firms everything you pointed out starts to become an ever bigger problem. Doug & the board at large are in many ways still operating as if they are a small company because that is what they know... good thing is they REALIZE that & are prepared to take steps. Doug pretty much agreed with you that he is NOT the perfect fit for CEO, IMO.
He’s great with vision. He’s even great with motivating people towards that vision. He just isn’t great with understanding the whole of people’s needs and providing for those. But theoretically someone else could do that. It honestly feels like they need to break CEO down into multiple roles and just have an unconventional company structure. Doug can still be the long term vision guy, but with little to no say in benefits, safety issues, HR etc. *shrugs*
I love this shadow leader plan where Jason holds the title and Doug is moving things behind the scenes. One qucik flaw though...should the plan have been published on RUclips.
I think rotating CEOs could work, but it will then be important for everyone in the board to discuss and agree on a direction for the company over the next few years. You need a mission statement and long term goals and have everyone working towards that. You need to be able to all bring ideas on that, and vote on it, then execute. Doug needs to be the one to communicate it and motivate people because he’s good at that. If you can do that, I don’t see that you need one specific CEO except perhaps as a figurehead. On the other hand, you guys do seem a bit indecisive sometimes (per this meeting) so it’s possible that won’t work… in which case you might need a real CEO. But you can try such a rotating system first and see if it can work. You definitely will need to structure it properly (firmly) and keep to meeting plans and schedules on high level topics like vision and direction. It don’t think it should be wishy-washy - like an excuse to just not decide things. Make it a formal structure/plan. Edit: On the other hand, maybe you just need to figure out an unconventional structure that works for you. Doug is the vision/direction CEO, but isn’t involved in HR/safety or any of that stuff that caused him to step down. He’s just about setting direction, then the board executes with specific tasks *shrugs* Authority is with the board. Different members have different roles some of which are part of a traditional CEO. All written down on paper though of course.
Dougie you are the ceo, no matter what tasks you give to others it all comes down to the team of You, Ian and Jason. Just accept the role you have carved out for yourself. You are in denial of your own strengths, Jason is a great designer, let him be one. Jason Nailed it btw. No one cares like you do Doug... Its you, it always has been and should always be...
I don't pretend to know anything about how hiring Karen as CEO would impact the company. I DO know that her time on Wyrmlife was some of my favorite content, and that there's great synergy between the two brands. Wyrmwood is the Dispel of gaming accessories. Dispel is the Wyrmwood of dice. You're like chocolate and peanut butter.
I think the idea of an odd-numbered board of directors would be best, at least for now based on your business needs. Odd number would mean there's never a tie, and it would be easier to convince Karen to be a board member than 100% responsible for the fate of the company
Happy new year guys, keep up the good work and thanks alot for the great content! Also Doug you should be CEO your vision about a company and the way you deal with staff is refreshing and inovative, the line of work you are in evolved since 30 years ago and some CEO refuse to adapt and change, you guys as a team make it work, don't change the core of your team. Maybe adding another arrow in your management team would help you out. But keep Doug
I'm not part of the Company but Doug seems like the best choice. Its not about being the best skilled person at everything; its knowing who to hire with the right skills that you can trust and then giving them the responsibility. Leadership is learning enough knowledge to be informed to make decisions, and then picking the right people to delegate to. (Just my opinion)
My impression is Doug so so badly wants to BE CEO but he doesn’t want to be the one to give it to himself, he seems to want someone or a group of someones to say “damn it Doug, we need you as CEO” as a total scapegoat of his big step down video speech.
I don’t believe you have to have a CEO, just have Doug be the President of the company and have the rest of you be VPs of different areas. All of these titles are just made up anyway according to Elon Musk! Lol set the structure the way that works best for your company, think less about the titles and their implied responsibilities. If you have to, make up your own titles, or reuse titles, and restructure the job description to fit what the company needs to run smoothly. Love this Chanel and have watched every episode! Keep it up guys, wishing you all the success!
The quarterly elected dictator actually makes a lot of sense. The board should definitely convene regularly to assess the company progress and direction, then decide who on the board should take Chair and spearhead those future plans for the next 3 months. To Jason's point, some things take longer than 3 months to achieve, and so that chair can easily be occupied by the same person for multiple terms to support those directions that the board supports.
I have no right to give advice to a company I have never been a part of or any company for that matter. But why not have a board of executives where 1 is ceo, but final decisions are made by unanimous decision. Ceo is just the final person responcible. Or you ask your employees or at least the managing roles for their opinion. Anyways You have been doing some good work out there Stay save :)
You guys really need a restructuring in the executive offices and financial v operational planning. It’s like you’re running a midsize business with a small time mentality. So many of your headaches can probably be eliminated with humility and better management structure.
Someone brought up a good point. Ian started fresh as CEO and ended up pretty worn down. I think you have to look at this a different way - Doug is still CEO - but just in name. It’s just there is a bunch of stuff he doesn’t want to do - so he “names” a CEO to do it so he doesn’t have to - but he’s calling the shots still. They just get her crap assignments and have to somehow juggle getting what Doug wants into what they have to do. We only see this from the curated angle. I bet it’s pretty obvious from the inside thats what’s happening. No wonder no one wants the job.
Sounds like Wyrmwood wants to be the Roman Empire; normally run by the Senate (Board) but occasionally it needs to select a temporary Ceaser (CEO) in times of war (times of big change - see Keystone).
Jason or Doug really should read or listen to the book "The Five Dysfunctions of a Team" by Patrick Lencioni. It really hits home what the role of the CEO really is and talks about the problems they brought up around the CEO position as a concept. We used it during my MBA courses. I would totally volunteer to be hired as CEO not 100% qualified but i would say probably 80% there. #wyrmwood
Do the army thing... have a leader and a co leader. Then delegate strengths and weaknesses between each other. If one is a strong leader of men, the other is usually strong at logistics and other stuff...
You said it perfectly. The CEO needs to run the overall picture. Dug you are the best at that. And a CEO requires a second in command the bring a stabilizing balance and to help the CEO stay on track or be flexible when needed. Dug you are great as a CEO you require a second in command that will help you do that. Brining a woman to essentially wrangle a cowboy like Dug is impossible and no woman with any decent brain will tackle that. Find someone that Dug is willing to listen to and work with then the leadership will be a team instead of a dictatorship. Words of wisdom or shit in a pot. Who knows.
Up until the point that Doug said "this is riveting" (sarcastically) I was actually really enthralled. I absolutely LOVE getting to see the organizational thought process and discussion behind building a mega-successful company. Thank you for sharing these pieces.
this episode of Wyrm Lyfe is the best episode to ever exist so far. i would cautiously say it's so good, that it doesn't even read as the next installment of continuous narrative, or youtube content. comes off more as a piece of a William Becket, or Sam Shepard play....and of course the modernist absurdist comedy editing is chef's kiss.
i think atm the board being Ian, Doug, Jason, and Ed is small enough and has such a long standing history between each other and the company that all CEO decisions can be run democratically as majority rule. the PA people like James and Kelli should be in consideration to join that board with all equal standing voice....i mean hell, if movies taught me anything it's that this idea works for pirates...plus having a singular CEO gives a greater chance of Putney Swope'ing it.
Fill! That! Hole!
Also, real talk, love that you guys are so transparent.
Love Wymlife. Love all the content. Love to watch you navigate real problems.
Dale is awesome. Easy guy to deal with & gets things done. I like working with him. Awesome company all around
I know how late this comment is, this is like my 5th time binge watching wyrmlyfe... All that being said, I need to get something off of my chest. If Waldman were to be the CEO, Wyrmwood would become such a bigger and more profitable company, not even having the need for kickstarter. In the process half of the workers would be laid off, all the gaming accessories would disappear and the furnitures would be made of plywood and MDF...
As an HR Business Partner, I am in complete love with this conversation. This is my shyte!
Love these meeting episodes
One of the reasons why you guys have grown so fast and done so well is because you're willing to sit down and have these conversations. You're more concerned about doing a good job than about having a title or bossing people around. Don't bother trying to do things the way others do them just because 'everyone does it that way.' Screw that. Stay flexible and you'll be better at dealing with shit that crops up along the way.
This is amazing content! I do love this.
Previously... on Succession...
Please oh please let’s get a Succession style wyrmwood intro :-D
Jokes on you drink, I was already subscribed! *downs the glass*
Happy New Year!
Jason’s point about invested authority is super relevant; CEO derives their ability to steer the ship from the leaders implementing the high level vision. The leads need to take the role seriously if they want the role to have function. If that platform for leading by authority is not taken seriously by the leads, then the CEO is an individual contributor leading by influence, which is what we see (on Wyrmlife) and that’s a lot less efficient (but more collaborative). Just saying “no no, we take you seriously” doesn’t fix the investiture issue which impacts how effective a CEO can be. Someone who is charged with “Executive” decision making needs their decisions to be implemented quickly and it’s their responsibility to make data-driven decisions that are right, most often, even if it’s not the obvious or intuitive path. Wyrmwood (through the lens of Wyrmlife) does not take the CEO role seriously, treating it more like a tie-breaker role. This is ok, but makes any incoming CEO’s life harder than it needs to be unless they are forceful personality.
100% accurate here
You can have Doug be CEO in title for the sake of it. The Board idea is still a solid option because it helps ground the CEO along with making sure that all the heads of the departments are properly heard. So long as you properly implement a Board in a way that benefits WyrmWood, I'm sure you guys will be perfectly fine. Technically, you guys already have a "Board" with the main heads from Wyrm Lyfe we get to see. You guys are the most open and willing-to-listen heads of a company I've seen. Just keep them together when they need to be. You're doing fine. :3
I think the answer is obvious; Frank should be the CEO.
@4:20 Smart. Gotta respect that.
They should make whoever edited this video CEO. Amazing job
Ty for the crazy 2021 hope for a even more crazier 2022
This is why you have a board of directors who vote on a direction, and a CEO who executes on that direction. Choose who should be on that board of directors (preferably they should reflect various sections of the company) and convene every 3/6/12 months and evaluate your direction, progress, and goals. Vote on if you continue that direction or need change. CEO's vote is the tie break in the rare case you need it, but decisions should in general be made via consensus and compromise rather than hard line voting. The CEO doesn't need to be the "source" of your companies vision or direction, he just needs to be someone able to execute on it.
Oh my God, the Jason's strengths edit was fucking glorious.
Doug was and is CEO. Titles change but the leadership, creativity and drive stay the same. Such an amazing group of people assembled...but only one true leader. As Jeff Winger said "I don't step up to being a leader, I reluctantly accept it when it is thrust upon me" #theleaderyouneed
oh the editing ! makes the dialogue so funny
I think 3 CEO's is the logical play. All have the title and hash thing out as a team like you do so well. Just makes sense
I mean it sounds like you're moving towards having an executive board for decision making and then, possibly, just having a designated "tie-breaker" CEO who doesn't necessarily have overall operational responsibility beyond the scope of their particular department
Designated tie breaker who's completely impartial? Sounds like a job for Frank!
@@Reyn_Roadstorm this is actually a decent idea
They don't even need a designated tie breaker if the Board is always an uneven number. They've got Doug, Jason, Ian, and Ed already. Maybe it would be easier to convince Karen to join if she weren't the sole CEO, but was just the 5th member of the Board. She'd still be at the top and have the ability to steer the company, but the full responsibility of the company would not be entirely on her either.
@@greyborg3846 Yeah, I could see them doing a board of executives of an odd number. Perhaps Doug, Ian, Ed, Jason, Bobby, & James?
From the conversation i was thinking the same where they head to a Board style or leadership
1:40 i love these exaggerated silences lmao, they always crack me up
You don't have to have a CEO. There are other ways to manage a company. Presidents / Principles / Partners / etc. Look up the Swedish Company where nobody is in charge. Hierarchy reduces collaboration and Wyrmwood is a company of collaboration, despite it seeming like Doug makes all the decisions. Also, how will the employee's who voiced their concern about Doug's leadership be considered or treated? Talk to Frank, there are other ways to structure a company.
I think this is a great comment.
I can also hear Jasons concern about direction switching rapidly and not committing to one direction.
It should be someone's job on the board to define that direction. Maybe that's the change that convinces Karren to join
Right, having a board driven driver of the company does not preclude a consistent vision. Get the members of the board to collaborate on a few key things:
1. A Mission Statement - This is the overall vision that should drive what happens.
2. A FY Roadmap - What are the key things for the year.
3. A Quarterly Roadmap - Within the FY - what needs to happen each quarter.
Then you adjust things as new things come up or as things are realized to be infeasible, but you still have that overall vision set for at least a 1 year time frame.
Found the top comment. This guy knows what's up.
I'll definitely second talking to Frank, especially since the decision was made to put off the final decision a few months, see what his suggestions are.
"Look up the Swedish Company where nobody is in charge. " OK, so I did this... for the benefit of others the company in question is Crisp. The 1 thing I see that REALLY needs to be called out is Crisp has a grand total of 40 staff. They are a SMALL COMPANY, like Wyrmwood used to but is no longer. They're also a software consultancy... which just happens to also be my industry. Software consultancies are somewhat... weird. They're very often small, have low overheads, & most of the work they do isn't for themselves, since a majority of folks doing the work that earns the company bread are doing said work for OTHER companies. Often this leads to a weird dichotomy where there is a disconnect between the home office & the consultants, with the worst case being the consultants can basically forget who they actually work for. Suffice to say, it doesn't line up with WW's current situation very well.
Big Tony for CEO 2022!
I can completely sympathise. Our company has grown from 2 designers ( from 2010-2020) when our owner COVI-closed it and we were bought out... and expanded to 6 designers, a production shop and 2 crews of 4 -- designing and building our clients homes and renovations. I, for 10yrs -- and the previous 20 before that was -- DESIGNER -- my passion -- and now have been thrown into the "manager" -- and hating it.... but thus is the cost of growth. I guess
It actually is a little riveting, its super interesting getting a real life look inside an actual functioning company and seeing how this type of thing works, its sort of like actually good realty TV, its not scripted, its just this is a thing that's happening about people and a company we (I?) care about.
And, just to point out to Wyrmlife... it's probably good insight for their employees too.
A CEO is the face of the company. Inside and Out. But you need more VPs or heads of other departments to handle their business areas.
I mean all signs point to 2 options in my head, Either Doug is CEO because let's face it you're the best choice or you could also go in the direction of no CEO. Sure give someone the "title" but there's so many companies that run based on a board rather than one person. Which I feel suits Wyrmwood a lot better. It's like everything I see wrong in my company you guys are doing the right things because you don't stick to some "that's how it's been that's how it's going to be" mindsets. You're free-flowing thinkers doing what's logically the best decision for your company. Which in my opinion is your company's biggest strength. There's no reason Doug can't be the one to corral people, Jason takes control over the products, Ian takes control over the production, and Waldman takes control of the finances. Then anytime there's a major decision you all come together and make that decision from every aspect of the company. Idk in my eyes, its either Doug or a Board the only thing I see in between is hiring from outside the company and good luck with the current work climate because they will have major leverage on their pay/benefits.
.
Someone probably has already said this but crazy ed for ceo 2022!!!
HEAR HEAR! Happy new year
A CEO puts people in positions they are best at and is only really there to keep them from flying off the rails. Also, the best CEO's are inspirational and empowering.
Doug for CEO, Jason for COO, IAN Director of production! sorted
In Italy a CEO or Managing Director is know as "Amministratore Delegato", which I feel is a little more flexible if you accept a more direct translation of "Delegated Administrator". Their role in corporate evironments is less about handling everything, but being the administrative figurehead as required by the Board. Wyrmwood seems to work better as a networked leadership that works well. You need the guidance of a figurehead to push for the big objectives, but you don't need it to try crazy "rule-breaking" things and see how they work out. HR doesn't need the CEO to deal with HR things, they do need the CEO to sign off on bigger company-impacting changes. Engineering doesn't need the CEO to do engineering, they need the CEO to sign off on buying new machines.
You're essentially already doing this as a "Board" and only need the formality of a CEO if you want it and to better unify a vision under a figurehead.
Stay awesome folks!
(Edited for typos)
Head of The Board, President, CEO, these are all titles for basically the same thing. All a good CEO does is get the right people together for the job. It doesn't mean they can't help, but they need to be available to put out fires and keep the big picture coming together. If they run a department, they can't easily pivot.
An option is to have that single organizer, but shift the primary leader as projects demand. Whatever the titles are, you have 1 person who is checking on all teams to ensure they have the resources and a floating leader driving the primary focus for whatever amount of time. After that time, the leader can change to the person who is best for that next multi-team focus.
None of you really want the title. It can be stressful. Few like administrations. Committing to a set amount of time can make it a little easier.
i mean... you could just have a worker co-operative... you know... that thing you said was working so well when you were doing it before. company meetings and votes being the decision making force behind the company. because you have such great people that all love the company and can make it great.
Crazy Ed for CEO. Lets see what can get done.
Jason could be Chief Product Officer. Head of design and engineering. Those teams (design and engineering) may still work separately, but the Chief Product Officer guides the design of the brand and makes sure the output meets the expected quality.
I like the management questions too. This is a hard problem to solve
CRAZY ED for CEO!!!!
You should make a big really blingy and gaudy CEO pin, to be worn by whomever is the current interim CEO, so everyone in the company and everyone watching wyrmlife knows who's currently "in charge".
From what we see in WyrmLife, I don't think Doug stopped being CEO. He, and Ian, and Ed, and Jason all have authority (and will always have it, no matter their titles), which is earned because they are good at what they do. I think you shouldn't try to necessarily chase the Unicorn that is the perfect CEO for Wyrmwood. I think it's right that you should have it, as an end of the chain of responsibility, but that doesn't have to mean more than that. The board runs Wyrmwood, and Doug is the tie-breaker.
Dis ☝️
+
This is a good take, I also think they have a good ability to address what they need at the moment from a leader.
yea crazy thing is some ppl quit over that decission but really nothing changed
Doug never stopped being the CEO as he controls the purse strings. I remember Jason having to ask him on a previous episode for approval on some cutting bits.
... sit stand desk? SIT STAND DESK?!? SIGN ME UP!!!
Also, sounds like you need Co-CEO. The roles of CEO are split between a couple of people. Or the title of CEO is Doug's but then his deputy (for the design/company direction stuff) is Jason.
Doug can't be that singularity of power, because Doug is the one that needs to be told "no" the most. Jason is very good at that. That said, if "the brain trust" just makes collective decisions together like it appears they do, does it really change anything? Just make it a collective that votes on things, and give Jason (as the person who seems to have the most reserved and grounded sense of what's what) veto power.
1000x this
#Kelly for CEO
Alright guys fine, I see where this is going and you've convinced me. I'll be CEO
Broke: CEO
Woke: Wyrmwood Board of Directors
Bespoke: COUNCIL OF WYRMS
Episodes with Ian are better than all other episodes. Also, my resolution this year is to eat more potatoes. I think I'm gonna succeed!
Having founded and sold several companies, I've seen this happen multiple times. Rarely does the personality and drive of a founder, translate into a person who can manage a company at scale. You have a couple options, find a person with experience running a company and bring them onboard as CEO/President. The issue is that kind of person's vision can often conflict with founders.
Second, find yourself a President. Most people think the CEO runs the company and that is true in very small companies, but the actual person who manages and runs the company is the President. Depending on the size of the company, the President is like the shop manager, their job is to ensure day to day operations and running, interface with all division managers and make sure they are on task and their needs are being properly communicated with other managers. They typically have no involvement in the "vision" of the company, like a CEO would. Shopping for a President is a lot easier than a CEO, because their job is a lot more focused towards managing the managers and interfacing with outside business.
Yeah. I agree with you
Yeah there are too many sections to the company to not have someone in charge of coordinating them and making sure that each one is getting the resources they need. A board would have a hard time keeping on top of that effectively.
You seem like you know what you are talking about. What does a Chief Operating Officer do then?
@@randyward2766 all of the positions at different companies can sometimes have different tasks. Generally a COO is a position found in the manufacturing sector, but other types of companies have them too. If a company has a President they often have a VP of Operations, but in this case with a CEO and a COO, the Chief Operations Officer most likely has Managers in the different manufacturing departments reporting to him. Ian as COO in the video seems pretty hands-on, meaning that he's often on the floor dealing with manufacturing issues with people that his managers handle.
What he's likely mostly doing is the planning and implementation of the tasks laid down by Doug and Jason as well as reporting estimated times and costs. Once things start rolling, he observes and tweeks the process through his managers to meet the goals based on the company's needs. Each project starts, continues and completes at different times so he'd be doing these things at the same time at different points within the process.
So, it's likely he doesn't ever design or plan the projects, but he manages them and sees them to fruition. But his focus is on utilization of personnel, machinery, materials, power, space etc. rather than on vision, design, creation etc.
@@fakjbf3129 "A board would have a hard time keeping on top of that effectively." Why? & why do you think an individual would handle that better than a group? I'll grant you a group of people has to setup meetings, which takes coordination, but they have the advantage of multiple people to manage the multiplicity of details.
I like the videos like this where y'all talk about stuff....idk how to word what I want to say lol
Some interesting shit here - good job :)
Ian’s idea is the best outside of a general directional vote
From the sounds of it you just need a leadership team where everyone has their role of leader of departments in the company(bobby as Chief Media Officer, Jason as Chief Design Officer...) Then there is a chairman of the team who makes sure there is communication and focus in the leadership team. basically a CEO who doesnt lead the company but make sures the leaders of the company are leading.
I don't get why so many are saying Doug was a great CEO. He literally quit in a fit of pique when his employees asked for changes he didn't like, some of which (health insurance, compliance with safety regulations) are required by law. Yes, Doug hates regulation based on his experiences trying to build a house, but that won't fly especially when it affects others. And if you would rather throw a tantrum rather than respectfully respond to your employee's complaints...that's not a great CEO.
Well, he was a great CEO when the company was smaller. That is what a lot of folks don't get... every company is different & bigger companies are different from smaller companies. Doug's kind of drive & involvement is GREAT in a smaller company... but in larger firms everything you pointed out starts to become an ever bigger problem.
Doug & the board at large are in many ways still operating as if they are a small company because that is what they know... good thing is they REALIZE that & are prepared to take steps. Doug pretty much agreed with you that he is NOT the perfect fit for CEO, IMO.
He’s great with vision. He’s even great with motivating people towards that vision. He just isn’t great with understanding the whole of people’s needs and providing for those. But theoretically someone else could do that. It honestly feels like they need to break CEO down into multiple roles and just have an unconventional company structure. Doug can still be the long term vision guy, but with little to no say in benefits, safety issues, HR etc. *shrugs*
Employees hate constant organizational change and re-orgs. Doesn’t show confidence that management knows what they’re doing.
The editing had me dying lol
BIG TONY FOR CEO!
🤦♂️that intro sound as Doug opens the computer. I’m dead☠️ the naughtiest Easter egg
I volunteer to be CEO, my qualifications are nonexistant, but I'd invest 500% of myself into the position :)
I love this shadow leader plan where Jason holds the title and Doug is moving things behind the scenes. One qucik flaw though...should the plan have been published on RUclips.
Jokes on you i'm already subscribed
I think rotating CEOs could work, but it will then be important for everyone in the board to discuss and agree on a direction for the company over the next few years. You need a mission statement and long term goals and have everyone working towards that. You need to be able to all bring ideas on that, and vote on it, then execute. Doug needs to be the one to communicate it and motivate people because he’s good at that. If you can do that, I don’t see that you need one specific CEO except perhaps as a figurehead. On the other hand, you guys do seem a bit indecisive sometimes (per this meeting) so it’s possible that won’t work… in which case you might need a real CEO. But you can try such a rotating system first and see if it can work. You definitely will need to structure it properly (firmly) and keep to meeting plans and schedules on high level topics like vision and direction. It don’t think it should be wishy-washy - like an excuse to just not decide things. Make it a formal structure/plan.
Edit: On the other hand, maybe you just need to figure out an unconventional structure that works for you. Doug is the vision/direction CEO, but isn’t involved in HR/safety or any of that stuff that caused him to step down. He’s just about setting direction, then the board executes with specific tasks *shrugs* Authority is with the board. Different members have different roles some of which are part of a traditional CEO. All written down on paper though of course.
Dougie you are the ceo, no matter what tasks you give to others it all comes down to the team of You, Ian and Jason. Just accept the role you have carved out for yourself. You are in denial of your own strengths, Jason is a great designer, let him be one.
Jason Nailed it btw. No one cares like you do Doug... Its you, it always has been and should always be...
But... I'm already Subscribed... Is the poison gonna get me?!?!? Con was my dump Stat on creation.
I don't pretend to know anything about how hiring Karen as CEO would impact the company. I DO know that her time on Wyrmlife was some of my favorite content, and that there's great synergy between the two brands. Wyrmwood is the Dispel of gaming accessories. Dispel is the Wyrmwood of dice. You're like chocolate and peanut butter.
You need business architect(s), and a board of executives.
I sometime forget this is a real company and not a TV show
Crazy Ed for CEO
I think the idea of an odd-numbered board of directors would be best, at least for now based on your business needs. Odd number would mean there's never a tie, and it would be easier to convince Karen to be a board member than 100% responsible for the fate of the company
Frank for CEO
Happy new year guys, keep up the good work and thanks alot for the great content!
Also Doug you should be CEO your vision about a company and the way you deal with staff is refreshing and inovative, the line of work you are in evolved since 30 years ago and some CEO refuse to adapt and change, you guys as a team make it work, don't change the core of your team.
Maybe adding another arrow in your management team would help you out. But keep Doug
Make leadership relative to the project. Ian's idea of 'Priority 1', but it takes 18 months...CEO (Singularity) is 18 months long.
Crazy Ed for ceo
I'm not part of the Company but Doug seems like the best choice. Its not about being the best skilled person at everything; its knowing who to hire with the right skills that you can trust and then giving them the responsibility. Leadership is learning enough knowledge to be informed to make decisions, and then picking the right people to delegate to. (Just my opinion)
Big Tony for CEO.
I love this video its awsome to see how the company operates wish more companies did this show us more!!!!!
What if you have the CEO from keystone (Before you purchased it ) take the title?
My impression is Doug so so badly wants to BE CEO but he doesn’t want to be the one to give it to himself, he seems to want someone or a group of someones to say “damn it Doug, we need you as CEO” as a total scapegoat of his big step down video speech.
You’ve got to have a face! Like it or not! Someone lead!!
I don’t believe you have to have a CEO, just have Doug be the President of the company and have the rest of you be VPs of different areas. All of these titles are just made up anyway according to Elon Musk! Lol set the structure the way that works best for your company, think less about the titles and their implied responsibilities. If you have to, make up your own titles, or reuse titles, and restructure the job description to fit what the company needs to run smoothly. Love this Chanel and have watched every episode! Keep it up guys, wishing you all the success!
The simple solution here guys: Make Crazy Ed CEO.
So who is going to be CEO?
NOT IT!
NOT IT!
NOT IT!
NOT IT!
DAMN!
The quarterly elected dictator actually makes a lot of sense. The board should definitely convene regularly to assess the company progress and direction, then decide who on the board should take Chair and spearhead those future plans for the next 3 months. To Jason's point, some things take longer than 3 months to achieve, and so that chair can easily be occupied by the same person for multiple terms to support those directions that the board supports.
Johnny for CEO! Johnny 2022!
I have no right to give advice to a company I have never been a part of or any company for that matter.
But why not have a board of executives where 1 is ceo, but final decisions are made by unanimous decision. Ceo is just the final person responcible.
Or you ask your employees or at least the managing roles for their opinion.
Anyways
You have been doing some good work out there
Stay save :)
Crazy Ed for CEO.
You guys really need a restructuring in the executive offices and financial v operational planning. It’s like you’re running a midsize business with a small time mentality. So many of your headaches can probably be eliminated with humility and better management structure.
Someone brought up a good point. Ian started fresh as CEO and ended up pretty worn down. I think you have to look at this a different way - Doug is still CEO - but just in name. It’s just there is a bunch of stuff he doesn’t want to do - so he “names” a CEO to do it so he doesn’t have to - but he’s calling the shots still. They just get her crap assignments and have to somehow juggle getting what Doug wants into what they have to do.
We only see this from the curated angle. I bet it’s pretty obvious from the inside thats what’s happening. No wonder no one wants the job.
Crazy Ed as CEO
Also key factor is everyone that works there should care about the job quality over quantity.
You guys need way more Dales.
Sounds like Wyrmwood wants to be the Roman Empire; normally run by the Senate (Board) but occasionally it needs to select a temporary Ceaser (CEO) in times of war (times of big change - see Keystone).
CO CEO is the way to go. not just one person.
They need a strong COO to do the administrative stuff and answers to the board.
Jason or Doug really should read or listen to the book "The Five Dysfunctions of a Team" by Patrick Lencioni. It really hits home what the role of the CEO really is and talks about the problems they brought up around the CEO position as a concept. We used it during my MBA courses. I would totally volunteer to be hired as CEO not 100% qualified but i would say probably 80% there. #wyrmwood
This is sounding more and more like a Board of Directors.
Do the army thing... have a leader and a co leader.
Then delegate strengths and weaknesses between each other. If one is a strong leader of men, the other is usually strong at logistics and other stuff...
You said it perfectly. The CEO needs to run the overall picture. Dug you are the best at that. And a CEO requires a second in command the bring a stabilizing balance and to help the CEO stay on track or be flexible when needed. Dug you are great as a CEO you require a second in command that will help you do that. Brining a woman to essentially wrangle a cowboy like Dug is impossible and no woman with any decent brain will tackle that. Find someone that Dug is willing to listen to and work with then the leadership will be a team instead of a dictatorship. Words of wisdom or shit in a pot. Who knows.