I know this is a common trope here, and yeah, plenty of MBA-type CEOs are trash. But speaking as a founder/CEO of a small company, the quality gap between an average hire and top talent at the director level is night and day. Proven talent comes with a massive price tag, but it's almost always worth it. The times I regretted going with the 2nd or 3rd place candidate because they were cheaper ended up setting us back…
You’re getting a lot of pushback, but I’m genuinely interested in your experiences. What differences have you seen between average and top leaders? Not in results, but in terms of how they approached the job?
OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future
241–250 of 395 posts
Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI can’t replace genuine 1:1 human interaction. We’re social animals, and a machine pretending to be a human can’t engender the same emotional response as another human.
But how much of a CEO’s job requires 1:1 human interaction? If I as a software developer am to be told I can do fine without human meetings to discuss product requirements, why can’t CEOs? If CEOs are going to start claiming that a core role of their job is emotional inspiration as a result of all those all hands meetings they’re going to be surprised how much laughter they get in return.
Oh hell no. That's not where the value lies.
You can't send an AI CEO as part of a trade delegation. Sending an AI to close the deal doesn't tell the other party that you're there to make sure the deal happens. That's the sort of thing a human CEO does that an AI can't.
Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future
#243The reason why CEOs exist is because the owners/shareholders want someone do run the company for them.
That is why their salaries are enormous. I love this Ai concept though! It is genius and hilarious.
Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future
#244I have learned that the purpose of a CEO in many (most?) companies is not to actually run the company. Their purpose is to be the human delegate that represents the corporate entity. They are empowered to act on behalf of the entire organization. This is important because a corporation of many individuals generally cannot act as one. You can sometimes get close with really, really good teamwork, but that's still not…
Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
But I do think you can't enjoy life if you don't work. Pain is the seasoning of life. Of course, my life is full of seasoning and nothing else. Both pain and pleasure are necessary. It's just that there's only pain right now, which is the problem. If AI could just handle the economic activities for me so I could have a little bit of 'pleasure,' that would be great. I just want to do the programming I actually enjoy
Oof. Pain may well be the "seasoning of life" but work is not pain. Work is the thing that helps one lift society up. We're all connected beings and one's occupation is how we each contribute to that society. The idea that it's something we suffer through in order to eat is a crummy reversal of the idea of having purpose . It doesn't matter if one is selling toilets or scrubbing them, each of us is still keeping civi…
Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future
#246Good satire. I find the "RTO is because of RE valuations" to be the most bizarre thing about the post pandemic work discourse. Office leases are a rounding error to large employers. They are not coercing employees back to the office because their worried about the value of a single portfolio asset falling (assuming they even own it). They are doing it because it's about power. Middle managers do not trust their staff…
What I have witnessed, with empirical evidence, is that productivity and/or output across the organization slows down. It is great at first as everyone can catch up on their work and existing projects but then the longer term implications is the teams are disconnected, decisions are more difficult, coordination of simple tasks more difficult, onboarding and actually integrating new employees is difficult, curating the culture is difficult, and it goes on. If you’re a very disciplined individual contributor focusing on low collaboration units of work, then it’s likely you did see a productivity boost. It’s unlikely you could maintain it over long periods of time. But even if you did, you’re probably an outlier.
So it’s not about anyone’s need to feel worthwhile it’s literally about doing what is probably the best for the company even if it upsets some people. Even if some people will be less productive, the organization as a whole will function better. When productivity goes up, it’s only a good thing if output and all the other tangibles aren’t sacrificed in the process. The leaders of organizations initiating RTO usually have done so by avoiding this true talk type conversation with the employees. This is what has led to people filling in the gaps with BS about real estate evaluations. It’s been poor communication and I think a dose of honestly and openness would be beneficial. Sometimes it’s a feeling and they don’t have the means to really collect data and lay it out in an empirical way, so I think that’s part of the reason they avoid it.
Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future
#247Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future
#248I know this is a common trope here, and yeah, plenty of MBA-type CEOs are trash. But speaking as a founder/CEO of a small company, the quality gap between an average hire and top talent at the director level is night and day. Proven talent comes with a massive price tag, but it's almost always worth it. The times I regretted going with the 2nd or 3rd place candidate because they were cheaper ended up setting us back…
Roughly, how did it become clear that the second or third place candidates set the company back by months? Did the company ultimately hire the first place candidate and discover their superior effectiveness in the org?
Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
> really achieved what they did elsewhere due to sheer luck/help This world view is not falsifiable. Regardless of success you can say it was luck. But I just don’t understand this. In my work we are constantly giving people chances to take on more responsibility, and often they don’t want to, or it doesn’t work out. Why would you expect that you could drop them in as CEO? Are CEOs always the cause of success or fail…
You can't drop everyone in that position but there is a significant number that still could do it. It is not 100% more like 50%/60% luck.
Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
> really achieved what they did elsewhere due to sheer luck/help This world view is not falsifiable. Regardless of success you can say it was luck. But I just don’t understand this. In my work we are constantly giving people chances to take on more responsibility, and often they don’t want to, or it doesn’t work out. Why would you expect that you could drop them in as CEO? Are CEOs always the cause of success or fail…
It also depends on whether you're providing appropriate compensation for the responsibility that you're offering. I see several cases where managers offer more responsibility for a peanuts' worth of pay hike and then say the same stuff you said.
Are there people who could do more and are happy where they are at? Sure. But that’s also not going to work for CEO.