Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

recode.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 75 posts

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#31

Post by lotsofmangos »

nostrademons wrote: post #15
harryh wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure there is. You go talk to the CEO and say "I think you're sucking at leading and sales. And I think that because of reasons X, Y & Z." They might not listen to you but you can certainly tell them.

Better is "Why aren't we doing X, Y, and Z to improve sales?" That phrases it in a positive tone, with concrete solutions, and gives the CEO an opportunity to tactfully tell you why your model of the world may be wrong. Beware that very often the response is "Well, I never considered that, but it sounds like a good idea. Why don't you lead a project to do X, Y, and Z and we'll see how it turns out? Oh, and be sure to…

Better still...

Remember that idea you suggested last week in the pub of doing X Y and Z. Well, we started doing it on the side and it is increasing sales. Should we start doing it officially?

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#32

Post by nostrademons »

sgt101 wrote: post #26

All of these things are true if your expectation of the future has zero value. On the other hand, if you think that there is any future then non of these things is true.

His point is that while you're waiting for the future, all of the people who report up to that executive have lost confidence in him. That confidence is impossible to regain. In the process, you will lose your best individual contributors and your best first-level managers.

Think of it from the perspective of a talented, savvy engineer at the company. If your CEO hires a bozo to manage engineering, do you stick around? Why should you? You are very good at what you do; you have plenty of options elsewhere, friends at other companies that are continually asking "Why don't you come work for Floogle?", and recruiters from Flare that are battering down your LinkedIn account. You're already aware that your VP makes a lot more money than you do; if it's clear that you are way more competent than he is, why should you stay?

Ben's guiding philosophy of management is "Always view all of your decisions from the perspective of everyone in the company." Trying to develop an executive for future potential may be what the CEO wants, it certainly is what the executive wants - but it's not fair to the individual contributors who work under that executive.

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#33

Post by bsder »

This article is foolishly binary. People are either world-class or are poor performers.

Your people are at least nominally competent. They got you to this point, after all.

So, all of his points about people already inside the organization are much more easily summarized as "If someone inside your organization is performing poorly, you don't have the time to do anything but fire them." I probably agree with this not because I think that your startup magically needs to move so fast, but because most managers are far too unwilling to fire people that desperately need to be fired.

As for an external executive hire, the whole point of pulling them in is to add a needed skillset to the mix. If they don't actually have the skill you needed, why did you hire them in the first place.

As for long term, this article falls into the trap of assuming that management is somehow an inherent talent. It is not--it is a learned behavior. This is a huge problem in business since people who believe that managerial skill is inherent never strive to measure or improve their skill.

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#34

Post by shostack »

floppydisk wrote: post #24
varunjuice wrote: post #8

When you're hired as an executive, the state of affairs is either glorious or shit. If its glorious, its because the previous executive left. You in this case have the excellent opportunity of not screwing it up. Good luck, but it'll be while before anyone figures out that you're an imposter. Typically, your team will know well ahead of the CEO. By the time the CEO knows, its too late to mentor you. The damage is don…

Wisest words I ever got early in my career from a boss who spent a couple of decades in senior management at a variety of big and small tech companies was if you're hired as an executive you immediately do three things. 1) Get in early, leave late, and read everything about the group you're running. 2) Get to know your people and understand the problems you're dealing with. 3) Change nothing immediately. Waltzing in…

The other piece of that of course is to communicate clearly to the rest of the executive that this is your approach in case some of them have expectations of you coming in making radical changes from day one.

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#35

Post by joecasson »

thirsteh wrote: post #23
Hansenq wrote: post #19

"In the end, a CEO has got to know her limitations." I love how he switches between gendered pronouns in this article, and ends with a female one.

Really, a complaint about somebody going through the effort of avoiding these complaints?

I don't think they were being tongue-in-cheek.

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#36

Post by dietrichepp »

bsder wrote: post #33

This article is foolishly binary. People are either world-class or are poor performers. Your people are at least nominally competent. They got you to this point, after all. So, all of his points about people already inside the organization are much more easily summarized as "If someone inside your organization is performing poorly, you don't have the time to do anything but fire them." I probably agree with this not…

Did you read the same article I did? The point was not that people are binary, but that success in executive positions is more binary than it is in other positions, because of the weight of early impressions on respect, the weight of respect on job performance, and the high impact of executives on the organization. You can hire an incompetent fry cook, engineer, or salesperson and train them to do their job (within reason).

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#37

Post by ABS »

Spooky23 wrote: post #29
ABS wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> show improvement within 90 days any (senior) executive who changes things in the first 90 days has got it completely wrong. And if who hired them expect sweeping changes in 90 days then they got it even worse. Anything that a new hire can do in their first 90 days can be done, and better, by whoever that new executive will report to. E.g.: if you hire me to fire the people you want fired then there is no reason to…

I respectfully disagree. Any significant org is going to have have some process that sounded good at the time, but is now ridiculous. If you're not finding and correcting those things in 90 days as an executive, you're warming a chair.

sure but there is a different between finding them, knowing how to changed them and executing that change. You need to know way more than what process is not working before knowing how to change it and you will need people on board to achieve a working lasting change. If you go in shooting from the hips you are very unlikely to achieve what you want, even if the problem is clear to everyone. If it were that straightforward they would do it without needing someone new

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#38

Post by geoelectric »

bsder wrote: post #33

This article is foolishly binary. People are either world-class or are poor performers. Your people are at least nominally competent. They got you to this point, after all. So, all of his points about people already inside the organization are much more easily summarized as "If someone inside your organization is performing poorly, you don't have the time to do anything but fire them." I probably agree with this not…

I think you're trying to apply rules of thumbs for executives to everyone, and that doesn't work.

By the time you come in at executive level, as you say yourself, you'd better have the skillset needed, and better be functioning at an awfully high level with it.

It really doesn't take a lot to be world class once you're past those bars--most people aren't good enough in their areas to achieve executive status (I'm ignoring cronyism and a bunch of other less valid reasons to get the job) so once you're at that point, assuming you're legit, you're already in a small class of people.

Further, the executive sets the example for everyone else. So yes, if they're performing demonstrably poorly, fire them for heaven's sake. Otherwise the example they're setting will either influence everyone, or they'll be written off and now whoever hired them is going to inherit that distrust of competence.

Regarding management being an inherent talent, it's absolutely not. But a new executive hire is not the way to develop that talent--that job is for people who've already developed it. Mentor first, then promote, if you're shepherding someone from within.

And now, not ignoring cronyism and other poor reasons to hire someone, I think that whole "why did you hire them in the first place" is exactly what he's getting at. Don't hire (or promote) someone because you like them, assuming you can make them something they aren't today.

That's pretty much always true, strictly from a business perspective, but it's crucial as you go up the ladder. A bad exec will kill a company way faster than a bad employee, line manager, or even director.

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#39

Post by jnem »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #20
jnem wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Ive seen too often the person who is willing to say X,Y,Z is wrong, but cant offer a solution to solve X,Y,Z. Its the solution that matters. Bringing your CEO or any higher-up a problem without a solution is just adding to the noise that busy person already has to deal with. The whole purpose of an employee is to take an existing or new problem off of the CEOs plate.

This is fine in theory, but most solutions require time, resources, people, money... all things that employees lower down the hierarchy are unlikely to have. If you're saying 'Bring a suggested solution but don't try to implement it without buy-in', that's a slightly different process. The issue of who notices/fixes/prioritises/analyses tactical and strategic problems, and who assigns resources for the fixes, can mak…

True, if we get down to the nitty gritty, its not as simple as I portrayed. My intent was to say, bring an idea for a solution, don't just bring a problem. If I had two employees who came to me with the same problem, and one came prepared with a recommended solution and the other one didn't, it would be clear to me who the more valuable employee is.

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#40

Post by mathattack »

beloch wrote: post #18

"You should be extremely clear up front that you expect your executives to be world-class in their functions. If they are not, they will not keep their jobs. Furthermore, you will not be able to make them world-class, because you are not world-class in their areas." I see two big problems with this statement: 1. It falls into the "everyone must be extraordinarily excellent" trap. The average employee is... average. O…

My sense is that the OP's attitude is counterproductive at lower levels. It's much cheaper and more effective to retain your best and develop them, rather than hiring in the open market.

Once you get to the top, it's much more difficult. Indeed a non-Finance CEO can't teach much about Finance to the CFO. And they need stars for direct reports because too much is at stake to rely on mediocre people to improve by self-learning.

Where the argument breaks down is culture comes from the top. If the CEO doesn't take coaching seriously, their direct reports won't either. The CEO has to find a way to show that personal growth is a top priority, even if it isn't by teaching outside of their own domain.

Post reply on HN