11–20 of 252 posts
Theres no accountability above a certain level. In a stable business (am excluding new innovations), proving or disproving the performance of an entire org, let alone company, is extremely difficult. Individual contributors are much easier to judge, and thus live lives of sub-ordinance. Their inputs and outputs can be easily mapped. The trick of working, and thus living a nice life, is to rise to a level of plausible…
Theres no accountability above a certain level. In a stable business (am excluding new innovations), proving or disproving the performance of an entire org, let alone company, is extremely difficult. Individual contributors are much easier to judge, and thus live lives of sub-ordinance. Their inputs and outputs can be easily mapped. The trick of working, and thus living a nice life, is to rise to a level of plausible…
Wut? At higher level in an organization, there is a much greater chance that you will be fired for things that you really have little control over. Now, at the highest levels, the compensation usually matches this level of uncertainty, sometimes with golden parachutes as well, so if you are fired you're still sitting pretty. But, for me, I wouldn't define "a nice life" with having to deal with that much stress as hav…
Theres no accountability above a certain level. In a stable business (am excluding new innovations), proving or disproving the performance of an entire org, let alone company, is extremely difficult. Individual contributors are much easier to judge, and thus live lives of sub-ordinance. Their inputs and outputs can be easily mapped. The trick of working, and thus living a nice life, is to rise to a level of plausible…
CEO is the easiest to measure, because you just pass through how the company as a whole is performing against it's goals.
Today OKRs have Narcissists running the asylum because they're always going to convince management that their glass is 70% full whereas yours is 30% empty.
Theres no accountability above a certain level. In a stable business (am excluding new innovations), proving or disproving the performance of an entire org, let alone company, is extremely difficult. Individual contributors are much easier to judge, and thus live lives of sub-ordinance. Their inputs and outputs can be easily mapped. The trick of working, and thus living a nice life, is to rise to a level of plausible…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CEO is the easiest to measure, because you just pass through how the company as a whole is performing against it's goals.
I'm not even sure it should be "against [its] goals", because the goals are chosen by the CEO. (Choose bad goals and accomplish them, and you're still a bad CEO.) It's just company performance, IMO.
In theory the Board's only job is to fire the CEO (and hire the next one) but if you've ever been to a board meeting they hardly are like that at all. They mainly are to align the company's "journey" with the "journey" of all the other companies the board members are involved with.
In theory the Board's only job is to fire the CEO (and hire the next one) but if you've ever been to a board meeting they hardly are like that at all. They mainly are to align the company's "journey" with the "journey" of all the other companies the board members are involved with.
Minor correction, the board's only job is to hire/fire the CEO, and decide whether the company can be sold to a prospective buyer
There are virtually no processes for anything which makes him untouchable. Whenever he fucks up, some PM or low level manager is fired due to their "low performance".
Is there anything non C-levels can do about it? Honestly I don't think so, all you can do is avoid the guy as much as possible and assume it's not the kind of company where you want to spend 5+ years.
Theres no accountability above a certain level. In a stable business (am excluding new innovations), proving or disproving the performance of an entire org, let alone company, is extremely difficult. Individual contributors are much easier to judge, and thus live lives of sub-ordinance. Their inputs and outputs can be easily mapped. The trick of working, and thus living a nice life, is to rise to a level of plausible…
I like to believe Apple under Jobs was different.
The only analogue we have now is SpaceX imo. Tesla, if they crack self driving, maybe.
Theres no accountability above a certain level. In a stable business (am excluding new innovations), proving or disproving the performance of an entire org, let alone company, is extremely difficult. Individual contributors are much easier to judge, and thus live lives of sub-ordinance. Their inputs and outputs can be easily mapped. The trick of working, and thus living a nice life, is to rise to a level of plausible…
I like to believe Apple under Jobs was different.