41–50 of 156 posts
CEO's and mid to upper management are about power, not doing things. Why is it so hard for us to understand something that is so simple and so obvious?
If CEOs were as replaceable and disconnected from the outcome of a business as the author suggests, boards would've started doing this long ago and CEO salaries would come down as a result (lots of people want to be CEOs, and by this author's logic, virtually anyone can do it). This is so disconnected from reality it reads like satire.
They replace C-level people often and the relationship isn't what you imply. There's a structural power relationship in play. Monarchs play a fairly unimportant role these days but many countries still have them and compensate them handsomely. CEOs are structurally capitalist monarchs. Sometimes it's even a hereditary position. They even do the corporate equivalent of court and heraldry stuff. They're compensated not…
It may look like that, but it's not true. You know how a good system administrator doesn't seem that important because he prevents all the fires that a bad one would heroically put out? The mere presence of a monarch, not even his actions, acts in a similar fashion. They don't have to actively govern the country, but they have emergency powers that would allow them to prevent a wanna be populist dictator. And because of obvious game theory implications, these powers never have to be used — their mere existence, and everybody bring aware of their existence, is enough for deterrence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The kind of journalism that journalists want you to think they do - going out into war zones or directly interviewing people to find out new things of public interest - isn't replaceable by AI. The kind of journalism they actually do - hanging out on Twitter and repeating whatever goes trending there - is easily replaceable. They did this to themselves.
That is certainly the view of many people who aren't writers or journalists. We'll see if it plays out. Jobs do tend to appear simpler than they really are when looking in from the outside. >They did this to themselves. And who set this bad direction? The CEO. This hardly adds to the case for not replacing him with an AI.
And it's not like some CEO decided "hey, let's pivot to churning out low-quality clickbait because I really like that stuff." They were forced to by the shift of ad budgets from print to more targeted advertising and the consolidation of news readership into a small number of well-known publications. Though I do agree that it's equally unfair to blame journalists for this.
If CEOs were as replaceable and disconnected from the outcome of a business as the author suggests, boards would've started doing this long ago and CEO salaries would come down as a result (lots of people want to be CEOs, and by this author's logic, virtually anyone can do it). This is so disconnected from reality it reads like satire.
This is like designing just the right shape of bomb to bring peace to the middle east. Neoliberal solutions dont work on the captains of the neoliberal order. If you want to bring CEOs to heel the best way to to organize, unionize and strike (if youre not a dev) or unionize and/or covertly work to rule (if you are).
Close. Automate middle management. All the things mentioned in the article really are prime candidates for automation. But that's management, not leadership. Management is primed to be automated. See Marshall Brain's book "Manna" for a great take on what's possible here. Leadership is not. LLMs are great at doing the right things when there's a general consensus on what the right things are. Best practices, etc. But…
I have almost this exact conversation with folks all the time. The majority of managers are dead weight and often have a negative impact on performance and culture.
Leaders (natural or learned) are incredibly valuable.
Managers are overhead.
Close. Automate middle management. All the things mentioned in the article really are prime candidates for automation. But that's management, not leadership. Management is primed to be automated. See Marshall Brain's book "Manna" for a great take on what's possible here. Leadership is not. LLMs are great at doing the right things when there's a general consensus on what the right things are. Best practices, etc. But…
50% of what middle management is what secretaries used to do. If I ever run my own company I will hire a team of secretaries to work with my developers and our productivity will shoot through the roof. No everyone is organized, good at scheduling, following up on things, focusing at work, interpersonal discussions, sending memos, navigating bureaucracy, etc. A great secretary allows you to focus on getting developmen…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most corporate structures are feudal. Folks should refer to their VPs as the Duke/Duchess of Engineering.
I hope this isn’t a hot take, but after seeing the apparent endgame of “democracy” play out over the last 10 years or so, I’m fine with business being done using a completely contrasting system.
If CEOs were as replaceable and disconnected from the outcome of a business as the author suggests, boards would've started doing this long ago and CEO salaries would come down as a result (lots of people want to be CEOs, and by this author's logic, virtually anyone can do it). This is so disconnected from reality it reads like satire.
They replace C-level people often and the relationship isn't what you imply. There's a structural power relationship in play. Monarchs play a fairly unimportant role these days but many countries still have them and compensate them handsomely. CEOs are structurally capitalist monarchs. Sometimes it's even a hereditary position. They even do the corporate equivalent of court and heraldry stuff. They're compensated not…
Court politics and C level politics are functionally very similar too.