Leadership1 publisher3 min readPublished
RiseGuide's CEO gave a board seat to someone recruited to argue with him
Alex Matsiuk, who runs a 110-person app company with no manager and no performance review, says he had to build his own feedback. He hired arguers and gave one of them a board seat, and he still picks who gets it.
The Board Room · Leadership desk
What happened
- Alex Matsiuk, cofounder and CEO of microlearning app RiseGuide, said in a Business Insider as-told-to essay that he has no formal manager, no performance review and no personal development plan.
- The company has grown to 110 employees across 12 countries since it was founded in 2024.
- He said he built feedback systems around himself, including hiring outspoken employees and reminding staff directly that he wanted their honest opinions.
- One creative producer questioned him for 45 minutes during her interview and challenged his description of the office view, so he carried his laptop around to prove it.
- He then brought a person onto his board specifically to argue with him, and that person challenged him before joining by asking what would happen when the two of them disagreed.
Compiled by The Board RoomSomething wrong?How this is made
Why it matters
- constraint The dissent runs on Matsiuk's appointment power. He wrote the criteria, chose the critic and screens the outspoken hires, so the loop tightens or slackens with his own appetite for being contradicted.
- decision A founder copying this has to decide which thing they want: a critic who challenges outputs week to week, or a board with the authority to act on outcomes. The arrangement described delivers the first.
- exposure The staff recruited for their willingness to push back carry the downside. They were hired on a promise of contradiction, and Matsiuk can withdraw it without announcing it.
The seat Matsiuk describes is an advisory one. He picked a person who understood the business model, knew him personally, and could spend enough time with the team to form a view [10]. He said that when he believes strongly in something people sometimes stop arguing with him, so he wanted someone who would not give up until one of them proved their point [11]. The essay does not say who else sits on the board or what authority it holds over him, and the underlying revenue and headcount figures are not there either [24].
A CEO already has a feedback loop: the income statement. Matsiuk's complaint is about resolution and timing. He said his performance is largely judged by the company's performance, and that if the business is growing, few people will say, "This could have been better" [3][23]. His advice to other CEOs is to "create systems that challenge your outputs, not just measure your company's eventual outcomes" [19]. He gave the kind of feedback he means: "Someone should be able to tell you that a Slack message was poorly written, your goals weren't ambitious enough, or a person you hired wasn't competent enough" [20].
The one worked example in the essay is a target-setting session about a year ago. Matsiuk proposed tripling growth and doubling the team over a six-month season [13]. The board member asked, "Why do you think that's ambitious? Why can't you go higher?" [14], then countered with a figure roughly twice the original [15]. Doubled, that is roughly sixfold growth and roughly four times the headcount [1]. Matsiuk describes the lesson as aiming to grow fourfold instead of twofold, which fits the headcount step and not the growth step [18][2]. He said the targets were raised and eventually hit [17].
The argument that moved him rested on experience. The board member had worked with a similar company and business model, knew the bigger goal was possible, and made a case strong enough to change Matsiuk's mind [16]. What changed his mind was domain credibility, and that narrows the transferable lesson considerably.
The people who are supposed to correct Matsiuk are people Matsiuk picked. He screens candidates for opinionated, independent thinking by watching how they behave [7], and he chose the board member himself [10]. His closing condition is a disposition: "If you encourage tough feedback, embrace it, and don't treat it as a threat to your authority" [21]. A system that depends on the CEO not experiencing dissent as a threat has nothing structural holding it in place. The cost this quarter is one board seat and a slower hiring filter. That changes the first time the designated arguer objects to something Matsiuk has already committed to in public.
What to watch
- Whether the board member keeps the seat after an argument Matsiuk loses on something he has already announced.
- Whether RiseGuide publishes the actual growth and headcount figures behind the raised six-month targets.
- Whether the employees hired for their willingness to challenge him are still there in a year.