Yeah, you can. You can chalk them up to statistical noise resulting from a few engineering and business model problems that need to be solved, which shouldn't be surprising in the relatively early days of a unique new business model like Facebook.

Just ignore the Silicon Valley and Wall Street news industry echo chamber, their fundamental business model is about turning statistical noise into ad impressions and cash flow. This too will pass.

>He did a great job getting the company to this point but perhaps the next major departure/reassignment is his. It is not unprecedented to have the board of a public company replace the founder with a more experience CEO and that is what it seems like is needed in this case.

As pointed out above, Zuck owns a controlling interest, so this won't happen. But more importantly, there no CEO alive with more experience in this domain than Zuck.

Who are you thinking of, Tom the Myspace founder? An ex-Yahoo CEO? There's still no one better than Zuck for this, so even if he could be replaced it would be foolish to do so.

The problem that Zuck (and Facebook at large) face is that there's a rift between expectations (100 Billion+ valuation) vs reality (it's a profitable, but much smaller business). Facebook needs to either change their belief (or expectations) or reality (somehow morph into a 100 Billion+ company). Neither is easy to do, but now that Facebook is a public company, they've at least got a chance. Market forces can help guide them to a realistic valuation, and given enough time as a profitable but lower valued company, it's possible they'll reset their expectations to something more realistic. Or they could finally pull the rabbit out of the hat and become a 100+ billion dollar company.

However I disagree with "There's still no one better than Zuck for this".

You were right that nobody has has much experience in specifically this area, however that doesn't mean there is nobody who could do his job better. It just means there's nobody who you can glance at and say "based on the headlines in their CV, they clearly have more practice doing this and their past results look good".

An incredibly over the top example of my point: If tomorrow Zuckerberg introduced a company policy of "no black staff, no black facebook members" I would definitely argue there are people who could do his job better based on that one policy alone. However the question of "most experience" would not have gained a new answer overnight.

This is a big mistake in the corporate world: thinking that you need a CEO with specific experience. On that high of a level, business is business. There are plenty of corporate executives who could do as good a job or better at running Facebook.

But that's not to say Zuck doesn't have unique advantages having built the company. He is also going to learn as he goes; no one is born with CEO experience.

Now, I have about as much experience at that level as you likely do, which is to say, none, but one of the primary functions of a leader is choosing empoloyees. And it takes one to know one.

I'm sorry, but it's extrordenarily difficult to hire outside of what you know. Do you know how many people have approached me /this week/ as an expert? I mean, I laugh, but I really am the best those people could find. This wasn't due to lack of money; this was because they didn't have much knowledge of my field, and because I'm loud. (I mean, some of that has value; I do write better than most people. I am more outgoing and have more tolerance for bullshit than most people that are actually experts. But that is mostly bullshit.)

I mean, sure, get a trusted co-founder or what have you. but if you don't have those skills? you won't know if that co-founder is a real expert... or me.

With you 110%. This is, really, the role best filled by the leader.

>"And it takes one to know one."

Nope, disagree here. I am fully confident that I can hire a great rocket scientist, especially with the resources of a major corporation. And I'm most certainly not a rocket scientist.

We're disagreeing on the fundamentals here. I believe that a good CEO knows that he doesn't need to understand the engineering of a social network in order to run a social network. At all. He has to put together the right strategy and the right team. It's not easy to accomplish, but it's certainly not complicated.

How would you hire a rocket scientist?

I mean, I'd go ask a friend who is one, but that's... largely blind luck. I mean, I know the guy is smarter than I am; I can tell he knows more physics than I do. but that's not saying a whole hell of a lot. And even if my friend is a good rocket scientist, I then have to trust he's good at picking other good rocket scientists.

It's a similar problem to how I'd hire an accountant. I mean, super important job, right? keeps me outta jail. Me? I found someone that ran a public q/a site. I knew she was good at explaining things, and I know she had certain certifications... but really, I had no idea (and still have no idea) if she's really doing the acccouning correctly. I mean, I have refered her to a few friends, who all have said positive things about her, so it sounds like I made a good choice, but I don't really know. I can't, at least until I get audited.

I mean, picking good people is a skill; sharing a knowledge base with the role you are picking is not sufficent to pick someone good. I have a very good friend that is a much better programmer than I am. But, her initial impressions, like most people's, mostly focus on confidence. She was interviewing for her boss, and was very excited about one prospect. "I think he's better than I am" she gushed. But, being a rational person, she gave some take-home work. The next day I got a call. "Would a person fail a take-home test on purpose?" Turns out, the guy was just a big talker. But still; the take home test saved her from an embarrassing co-worker. If she didn't have the knowledge to make and judge that test? she would have ended up hiring the idiot.

Without getting bogged down with literals, I'd do my best to determine what constitutes a good rocket scientist, and work away. I suppose I'm just confident I could do it. I've had to hire good people in my field (pharmacy), but I have no formal connection to the industry. Sure, maybe if I was a rocket scientist, I'd have a slight edge in this specific case. But don't forget, being a CEO doesn't mean you're hiring all rocket scientists (or in FB's case, engineers). You have to hire people of all types, so you lose any competitive advantage rather quickly.

eh, but depending on the company, some roles are more important than others. I mean, in facebook's case, it'd be marketing. Facebook, really, doesn't need top of the world Engineers; paying 5x what they would otherwise on infrastructure won't kill them. (they do need good people for the places where Engineering and Marketing colide. They need people that are good at psychology and at least mediocre programmers.) But marketing is what they /do/ - their business plan and their P/E is predicated on capturing a huge percentage of the world's advertising dollars. without best in the world marketing types, they are sunk.

This is why having even a relitively small edge in hiring the best people in one particular area can make such a huge difference, and one of the major reasons why I think CEO experience is not particularly portable across fields.

It's not unique; it's usenet with javascript and ads.

That doesn't necessarily mean anything with respect to the long term prospects for the company. Also, are these folks key execs? No idea.

So it doesn't matter whether the board thinks he should be replaced. He will be CEO until he is either sick of the job or unwell. But either it will be at his choosing.

And people need to remember that there is a lot of very rich people at Facebook now. It wouldn't surprise me if we see a lot more people resigning to create their own startups or buy an island.

That being said, the article actually makes the point that for two of these departures they may be leaving not because of hitting it in the SV lottery but because they're not going to see a payout because their options were priced in at an overly high valuation.

Facebook may get hit from both ends, those who have been there 3-4 years ago may be cashing out, those that joined in the last 1-2 years may be leaving because they won't see any return on their options.