A Marriage Gone Bad: Walgreens Struggles to Shake Off Theranos
1–10 of 140 posts
Re: A Marriage Gone Bad: Walgreens Struggles to Shake Off Theranos
#2I wonder, is this good or bad for other startups in the diagnostics space?
Re: A Marriage Gone Bad: Walgreens Struggles to Shake Off Theranos
#3I wonder, is this good or bad for other startups in the diagnostics space?
I don't see how there is anything good coming out of this for startups. Theranos burned the field for many more companies.
//EDIT: which is very sad to see because in many ways it seemed like the CEO was behind it with a lot passion and no ill intentions.
Re: A Marriage Gone Bad: Walgreens Struggles to Shake Off Theranos
#4I keep waiting for Theranos to loudly and messily implode, in a shower of subpoenas and people fleeing the country.
Re: A Marriage Gone Bad: Walgreens Struggles to Shake Off Theranos
#5I wonder, is this good or bad for other startups in the diagnostics space?
I don't see how there is anything good coming out of this for startups. Theranos burned the field for many more companies. //EDIT: which is very sad to see because in many ways it seemed like the CEO was behind it with a lot passion and no ill intentions.
I'm surprised by your latter statement, especially in light of your former statement. Being blinded by passion, and having "no ill intentions", even if we liberally grant that much, is not the same as being properly considerate of the risks and responsibilities of as critical a technology as healthcare diagnostics. I assign a CEO direct responsibility for being aware of the efficacy of their product, and being honest about this, or at the VERY LEAST taking a proactive, candid, and reconciliatory response when the former is found to be untrue, and none of these preconditions seems to have been met from the news I've read.
We live in a society where CEOs are lionized for success, but often seem to escape responsibility for failure. Frankly, I don't care either way if we consider them to be the true guiding hand or not, I just want us to be consistent one way or the other.
Re: A Marriage Gone Bad: Walgreens Struggles to Shake Off Theranos
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how there is anything good coming out of this for startups. Theranos burned the field for many more companies. //EDIT: which is very sad to see because in many ways it seemed like the CEO was behind it with a lot passion and no ill intentions.
I'm surprised by your latter statement, especially in light of your former statement. Being blinded by passion, and having "no ill intentions", even if we liberally grant that much, is not the same as being properly considerate of the risks and responsibilities of as critical a technology as healthcare diagnostics. I assign a CEO direct responsibility for being aware of the efficacy of their product, and being honest…
> I just want us to be consistent one way or the other
That does not really make sense, a priori prescribing how we want things to be. Assume a model of the world where the CEO always did something special to make their companies succeed, and where the failure of companies is always not due to the CEO, but due to the mediocrity of the other employees. That model makes about as much sense as each of the two other models you are proposing.
Re: A Marriage Gone Bad: Walgreens Struggles to Shake Off Theranos
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how there is anything good coming out of this for startups. Theranos burned the field for many more companies. //EDIT: which is very sad to see because in many ways it seemed like the CEO was behind it with a lot passion and no ill intentions.
I'm surprised by your latter statement, especially in light of your former statement. Being blinded by passion, and having "no ill intentions", even if we liberally grant that much, is not the same as being properly considerate of the risks and responsibilities of as critical a technology as healthcare diagnostics. I assign a CEO direct responsibility for being aware of the efficacy of their product, and being honest…
I think what's happening to the company is what should have happened from my understanding of the situation. At the time time I can sympathise with the CEO because she has been working on that since she was 19 years old and it would appear that she is behind this with a passion. That by no means implies that she is not responsible for this.
In my mind it's just a sad development from that perspective. Something I would not have wished on anyone.
Re: A Marriage Gone Bad: Walgreens Struggles to Shake Off Theranos
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm surprised by your latter statement, especially in light of your former statement. Being blinded by passion, and having "no ill intentions", even if we liberally grant that much, is not the same as being properly considerate of the risks and responsibilities of as critical a technology as healthcare diagnostics. I assign a CEO direct responsibility for being aware of the efficacy of their product, and being honest…
> I just want us to be consistent one way or the other That does not really make sense, a priori prescribing how we want things to be. Assume a model of the world where the CEO always did something special to make their companies succeed, and where the failure of companies is always not due to the CEO, but due to the mediocrity of the other employees. That model makes about as much sense as each of the two other mode…
Respectfully, I don't think that's what he's saying.
If we want to look at this formally, we see he is stating three things:
1. That we seem to apply inconsistent standards of responsibility to CEOs. Are they ultimately responsible for the outcomes of the companies they lead, for good or for bad? In current practice, we seem to selectively apply praise and eschew blame. He wants to point this out.
2. He personally believes the CEO is ultimately responsible; however...
3. At the end of the day, he just wants society to apply a consistent standard, one way or the other: either the CEO is the ultimate point of accountability for all things, or she's not. He almost "doesn't care" which one we choose, so long as we choose one.
Now, you're free to criticize the dichotomy he raises in those points. Maybe you find it overly reductive or absolutist. If so, fair.
(Personally speaking, I believe the buck should stop at the CEO, insofar as she is the chief executive of the company, tasked with understanding and directing all of its actions. If she took deliberate part in any alleged deceptions, that's certainly worse than if she negligently allowed the deceptions to take place. But in either case, she bears some responsibility. Not the same degree of blame, but the same mantle of responsibility. It's her company, and whether she deliberately misguided it or was simply asleep at the wheel, those are both derelictions of the CEO's responsibilities. Sure, the BOD outranks the CEO, but the CEO has a much closer relationship with the day-to-day operations of the company.)
Re: A Marriage Gone Bad: Walgreens Struggles to Shake Off Theranos
#9I wonder, is this good or bad for other startups in the diagnostics space?
Perhaps it's just a lesson to have your science locked down and proven before you make all kinds of promises to investors. And if your science is broken, don't snow people over with a board of directors that Fortune-50 companies can't even muster.
Re: A Marriage Gone Bad: Walgreens Struggles to Shake Off Theranos
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm surprised by your latter statement, especially in light of your former statement. Being blinded by passion, and having "no ill intentions", even if we liberally grant that much, is not the same as being properly considerate of the risks and responsibilities of as critical a technology as healthcare diagnostics. I assign a CEO direct responsibility for being aware of the efficacy of their product, and being honest…
> I just want us to be consistent one way or the other That does not really make sense, a priori prescribing how we want things to be. Assume a model of the world where the CEO always did something special to make their companies succeed, and where the failure of companies is always not due to the CEO, but due to the mediocrity of the other employees. That model makes about as much sense as each of the two other mode…
There are a few reasons I take the stance I do. (as a slight edit, sister post Jonnathanson summarized my broader point far better than I could have, whereas my below is more a "more on why the current system isn't great")
1. We are currently living in a world without the constraint I propose, in which CEO comp is often a pro-factum given and attribution of blame almost unheard of. I do not pretend that the system I propose will _always be correct_, but I do believe it would motivate better behavior, as tighter accountability often does in other systems even if it doesn't necessarily "make sense".
2. Given the innate ambiguity of most of these situations, who gets to make that call anyway? (fault of failure). Is it even possible to make? My bet would be in many situations, difficult at best; but there is a massive power discrepancy currently at play, where executives have significantly more control over message/direction/response than those they can saddle with blame, so I suggest structuring systems in ways that help offset that imbalance. Does this put more duress on CEOs to take responsibility for their employees? Yes, and despite what I conceded above re: "making sense" not being necessary, I truly do think that sort of responsibility does "make sense" especially in a world where as CEO you take a massive percent share of those employees value. To coopt an old turn of phrase, "No free lunches."