Live data from Hacker News

The Companies Headhunters Avoid

businessweek.com

21–26 of 26 posts

Re: The Companies Headhunters Avoid

#21
post #19
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would a man be less qualified? Should a female be automatically assumed unqualified to run a men's magazine or or a cigar manufacturer? Why are either of those scenarios scary?

This is what's scary: women still face a very thick glass ceiling in business (not men - the flip scenario comparisons are baseless and for the most part insulting to women, including those who smoke). More importantly, is it OK that women make up less than 5% of Fortune 500 CEO positions? That's not sad? To clarify, there's a huge difference between unqualified and less qualified. I would never say men/women are unq…

More importantly, is it OK that women make up less than 5% of Fortune 500 CEO positions? That's not sad?

Your feelings about whether this is sad, in the absence of further information about why it's so, signals mostly whether you care about equality of outcome or equality of opportunity.

Re: The Companies Headhunters Avoid

#22

I've said this often and I will say it again here: You want leaders, go military. Combat facing only. Why? Despite the (incorrect) Hollywood caricature of military leaders being shoot first ask questions later seim-psychotic blowhards, the military rewards everything you want in a leader and at the same time aggressively weeds out all but the strongest performers. A good military resume will almost without exception…

"You want leaders, go military."

There are as many bad "leaders" in the military as in any other organization. Viewing military experience as providing some kind of extra leadership credentials is naive. Veterans like to think this is true. There is no real evidence it is. (feel free to provide some).

Your list provides a handful of characteristics good leaders have, irrespective of field of activity. Such leaders exist in all fields where competition among groups of people exists. Military history is full of incidences where rigid, dogmatic commanders led their men to disaster, alongside many instances where inspired leadership made a difference.

As btilly pointed out above, the military "leadership" style depends on a command and control organization where orders are (ultimately) obeyed even when they seem senseless.("take that hill", the charge of the Lighr Brigade). Hardly good training to lead a group of free thinking professionals.

At least in the software industry the best leaders by and large don't have military experience. For good reason. Leading people who can "vote with their feet" anytime is a very different kettle of fish from leading a group of people who are duty bound to obey you even at the cost of their lives. Good hackers in particular don't "take" well to military style command.

"You want leaders, go military." makes about as much sense as "You want leaders, go politics.".

In both fields there are good leaders and bad leaders and there is a "ruthless weeding out process". (As a reductio ad absurdum argument) A case could be made that people who've been successful in politics (sure, frontline only, if you want it that way - in this case people who've stood for elections and been elected to office) are much better placed to lead a team than people who've been successful in the military. After all they know how to listen to people, harmonize interests, evolve a consensus, communicate decisions and so on.

"A good military resume will almost without exception create the following person:"

replace military with "sports" or "community organizer" and the list remains unchanged wrt to the leadership qualities required (though their expression will change depending on the filed of activity).

The key word in your sentence is "good" not "military".

"A good X resume will exhibit leadership qualities" where X is any group activity with a competitive element.

Re: The Companies Headhunters Avoid

#23
post #18
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History also suggests that Jobs would have been better off not asking him that question.

Not necessarily...here's what Steve Jobs had to say about it ( http://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-061505.html ): "I didn't see it then, but it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me. The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. It freed me to enter one of the most creative per…

"I'm pretty sure none of this would have happened if I hadn't been fired from Apple. It was awful tasting medicine, but I guess the patient needed it."

I watch this speech of his every couple months. So damn good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

Re: The Companies Headhunters Avoid

#24
post #14

I've said this often and I will say it again here: You want leaders, go military. Combat facing only. Why? Despite the (incorrect) Hollywood caricature of military leaders being shoot first ask questions later seim-psychotic blowhards, the military rewards everything you want in a leader and at the same time aggressively weeds out all but the strongest performers. A good military resume will almost without exception…

In Switzerland it used to be the case that a career in the military helped having a career in the private sector. I don't think this is true anymore. At the same time, no one ever needed all the qualities you mention in the swiss army. It never fought a war.

"To win and conquer in every battle is not supreme excellence. Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's will without fighting" -- Sun Tzu

Judging by how often Switzerland gets invaded, they must be doing something right.

Re: The Companies Headhunters Avoid

#25
post #7
post #4

"Do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugared water or do you want a chance to change the world?" Steve Jobs to John Sculley History suggests that he should have stuck to selling sugared water.

History also suggests that Jobs would have been better off not asking him that question.

The success of NeXT isn't really a reason enough to think that Apple would fare better under Jobs instead of Sally. After all, it was Jobs' decision to bring Sally onboard, and there were some pretty smart people on Apple's board of directors when they cut Jobs out, it was not all empty intriguing. If there were no NeXT, Apple could have easily been ripped apart by pink/blue debate, or shrivel and die, were the engineers involved ostracized by the management.

But what do I know. That's all pure speculation.

Re: The Companies Headhunters Avoid

#26
post #18
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History also suggests that Jobs would have been better off not asking him that question.

Not necessarily...here's what Steve Jobs had to say about it ( http://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-061505.html ): "I didn't see it then, but it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me. The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. It freed me to enter one of the most creative per…

So that's what we have to blame for Pixar.
Post reply on HN