291–300 of 395 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Steve Jobs was a founder, not your average CEO hire. He built the company from scratch.
Steve Jobs was hired as the CEO of Apple when the company was 20 years old. He was never CEO before that.
I 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…
CEO seems like a great job for AI.
This is a fun joke, but there's a real element of truth to it: A big fraction of senior executives' work is vulnerable to replacement by AI. In other fields, where automation or tooling has enabled technicians to do work that previously required expensive expertise, there's been a drive from management to replace those costly professionals. What's the parallel for executives? Is the CEO market ripe for disruption by…
AI cannot replace CEO the same reason AI cannot replace your girlfriend.
Take my money!!!
This is the kind of agent I want to see. Board rooms and executive management need to be just as scared as the rest of us.
We can actually review code and prompt better. Most of these people's skills involve connections made in business schools and the ability to shoot shit during three-martini lunches.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are confusing CEO pay with CEO ability. There is plenty of examples of companies doing poorly until a new CEO comes in, and others of a company doing well until the CEO retires and a replacement comes in. Ivy types have a poor history of figuring out which is which in advance though.
no its not like that, these people get plopped into positions of power, and alot of time theres no good way to assess their performance
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…
> speaking as a founder/CEO > massive price tag, but it's almost always worth it The "Obama putting a medal around Obama's neck" meme seems appropriate here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it just that the company collapsed? The third-rate version of him probably would have ended up in jail a-la SBF or Ms Holmes, with hopefully no one getting killed or maimed, or chemicals in a factory causing cancer across neighborhoods or poisoning wells or something. There are things worse than losing your job.
Only truly exceptional executives can be SBF or Elizabeth Holmes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is Steve Jobs even a good example of "the type of person I want to hire as CEO"? I think he probably is not. He was a demonstrably bad CEO, so much so that the Apple board fired him. He then went on to get better at the job through running another two companies until, eventually, Apple purchased one of these companies (it was very much unsuccessful, BTW). Then he became CEO and the company and was, finally, phenomena…
The question remains whether that was all him or a combination of Wozniak and Ive, on top of being at the right place(s) at the right time(s) (iMac, iPod, iPhone). Also he died 15 years ago, but Apple's success (measured in market cap at least) went up more than 10x since he died (from 300-400B to 3-4T), under Tim Cook. That's arguably from the groundwork and reputation the company laid down 15 years ago, but still -…
And since we're talking about CEOs, top-level personnel decisions are one of the biggest impacts a CEO can make. SJ promoted Ive to director of design, he also hired and eventually promoted Cook to COO.
I 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…
Huh. The sales team at my company is the one who closes millions in ARR and all the enterprise contracts - not the CEO. I’m sure being the “conduit of information and a representative element” is very important though. Someone has to attend investor meetings…