11–20 of 20 posts
I get a lot of the messages behind this article, but it just throws around a lot of claims without any citations or proof whatsoever. Just can't take this seriously. "she is the first computer scientist (MSCS or higher) hired in as CEO to a Fortune 500 company" "The most common degree of CEOs hired into Fortune 500 companies is an MBA." "She is not going to be the mad visionary of Steve Jobs, yelling at everyone whil…
The most common degree of CEOs hired into Fortune 500 companies is an MBA. Marissa appears to be the first computer scientist. There are more. Eric Schmidt springs to mind. When hired into Google, he had a PhD in electrical engineering.
The most common degree of CEOs hired into Fortune 500 companies is an MBA. Marissa appears to be the first computer scientist. There are more. Eric Schmidt springs to mind. When hired into Google, he had a PhD in electrical engineering.
Eric Schmidt wasn't hired into Google when it was a Fortune 500 Company.
To the extent you trust a single example, Schmidt/Google will tell you that a computer scientist CEO will fare running a large company.
The timing of his hiring seems only marginally relevant to the article's claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eric Schmidt wasn't hired into Google when it was a Fortune 500 Company.
The article claims that "this will be a test of a new style of leadership," as if we have no examples of how a large company will run under a Computer Scientist. To the extent you trust a single example, Schmidt/Google will tell you that a computer scientist CEO will fare running a large company. The timing of his hiring seems only marginally relevant to the article's claim.
The most common degree of CEOs hired into Fortune 500 companies is an MBA. Marissa appears to be the first computer scientist. There are more. Eric Schmidt springs to mind. When hired into Google, he had a PhD in electrical engineering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_noyce
He wasn't a "computer scientist", per se, but he sure was active in the underlying hardware. Of course, this was an era when "computer scientist" often meant as much hardware as software. And once you start talking hardware layouts...
P.S. I see now that Greg is basically making the point:
Many computer scientists view everything as an optimization problem. People, work, politics, life, everything is a search (often of a dynamic space) to find a maximum near the global maximum... She is a computer scientist and appears to be leading like one. I suspect she views the company, people at the company, the products, even her own role, all as an optimization process, a search to find the most productive and most useful outcomes.
Well, the best "computer scientists" I recall were/are able to perceive that domain as distinct, or a subcategory, of being a human being involved in the world. While computational science is very useful, we are not to the point of reducing nor defining the human experience solely or primarily in its terms. (If nothing else, we aren't that smart and capable, yet.)
The most common degree of CEOs hired into Fortune 500 companies is an MBA. Marissa appears to be the first computer scientist. There are more. Eric Schmidt springs to mind. When hired into Google, he had a PhD in electrical engineering.
It's just a weird sentence in general, an MBA isn't a degree.