AI vs. the Fortune 100


Change careers, start an AI company

Last week, we looked at CEO and C-suite leaders in the AI 50 to see how many of them have a history of making significant career changes.

76% of the AI CEOs had at least two different kinds of careers before starting their current companies. Interesting but maybe not surprising, since CEO-founders tend to be a non-linear bunch.

More contrary to conventional wisdom is that 64% of other AI C-suiters also have major career changes in their past. They are HR leaders who spent years in product or engineering, ops leaders who are former founders, tech leaders who are former academics, and lots more.

This week, in part 2 of our 4-part series on career changers and incremental growers, we're looking at leadership teams from legacy enterprises to see how they compare. (Subscribe here if you're not already.)

The Fortune 100 is not a monolith

I thought C-suite profiles from the Fortune 100 would make an interesting comparison point with the AI 50, since legacy enterprises are known to attract different kinds of leaders. More pragmatically, I had already collected useful structured data about the Fortune 100 since one of my clients is working on an (unrelated) data story about them. Practicality FTW!

Sure enough, compared to the AI 50, Fortune 100 CEOs and their C-suites are a more conservative bunch when it comes to career change.

Only 17% of Fortune 100 C-suiters have made significant career shifts, compared to 38% of their CEOs. Both of those numbers are much lower than their equivalent rates in the AI 50.

Within the Fortune 100, though, not all industries are the same. Companies in the tech and healthcare sectors have leadership teams with more varied kinds of experience than all other industries.

Tech tracks as an outlier, but healthcare was a bit of a surprise to me. Is that connected to the fact that healthcare is growing at a faster rate than most of the other segments? Could well be.

On the whole, though, AI leaders have more varied career experiences than Fortune 100 execs. On the face of it, this makes sense. Career changers have sought out new kinds of work in their own professional lives, so they may be more likely to gravitate to industries that are less well-established too.

Next up: Are career changers more likely to hire other career changers?

So far, we've seen that AI companies are more likely than established enterprises to be led by career changers. But are career changers more or less likely to hire other career changers? Next week we're diving into that data in installment #3. (Get the whole series and subscribe here.)

Kieran


Whether you're growing steadily or changing careers, I can help you grow. My coaching clients include startup CEOs, C-suite execs, and ambitious leaders inside large organizations, all leading with founder-level clarity, urgency, and ownership. Ask me about becoming a client!

My latest data stories | Build like a founder | nerdprocessor.com

kieran@nerdprocessor.com
Unsubscribe · Preferences

nerd processor

Every week, I write a deep dive into some aspect of AI, startups, and teams. Tech exec data storyteller, former CEO @Textio.

Read more from nerd processor

RTOh well In 2024, I collected more than 1,100 hours of recorded meetings across 150+ teams. In analyzing the corpus, I found much to recommend about in-person work: People both participate in discussions and disagree with each other more in person, especially women. Startups that work in person grow faster than those that are remote. Based on the data and also my own feelings of isolation last year, I decided that, whether I started another company or took a role at someone else's, I wanted...

I don't talk cool, and neither does your LLM I live with three teenage girls, so I am constantly reminded how not cool I am. For a few years now, my kids' favorite hobby has quizzing me on what I think different Gen Z words mean. They'll be like "you ate and left no crumbs, go!" and I'll guess something like, "you were really hungry!" and hilarity ensues. Sometimes I guess wrong on purpose. I don't think they've caught on yet. But as uncool as I am, even I am better at teenage code switching...

It's a UNIX system! I know this! I've spent a good amount of time building with Claude Code and GitHub Copilot the last few months. CLI (Command Line Interface) honestly feels like a throwback to UNIX days. But as it happens, the command line is a good interface for making software in a world where you're using natural language to do it. With the rise of natural language interfaces, I don't feel like I'm coding when I build software. "Vibe coding" is not the right description of this work...