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

41–50 of 75 posts

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#41

Post by bsder »

dietrichepp wrote: post #36
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 r…

There are TWO classes of executives. The first class are the people who are already at your company. The second class are the people who are brought in from outside.

While the advice in this article might hold for the parachuters from outside, it most definitely does NOT hold for those already at your company. Following this advice is a good way to paralyze a functioning company.

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#42

Post by bsder »

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.

> Any significant org is going to have have some process that sounded good at the time, but is now ridiculous.

That most people will be inexplicably attached to emotionally.

Try this experiment if you're in a Unix shop. Get people to sign up to maintain the unpackaged programs in /usr/local, and then delete the ones that nobody signs up for. Bring popcorn and an asbestos suit. Make sure you take a backup before you do it.

Congratulations. You now understand about removing stupid processes from an organization.

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#43

Post by alexqgb »

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.

"Any significant org is going to have have some process that sounded good at the time, but is now ridiculous."

And yet, it's still there. Understanding why that's the case is a pretty important part of ensuring that it actually changes. In other words, correctly identifying problems is the easy half of the problem. Dealing with the problems behind the problems is where things get tricky.

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread, etc.

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#44

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#45

Post by sitkack »

mathattack wrote: post #40
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-…

The CEO isn't the top of the org, the board is. Of course the CEO shouldn't/isn't the best at everything. If a C-level is lacking or needs help, you get them the help. The mentality that you are amazing or gone is utter bullshit, at the same time it isn't an excuse for chronically shoddy work. Everyone thinks they can be, or should be, The Yankees.

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#47

Post by pnathan »

MollyR wrote: post #25
angersock wrote: post #3

Unfortunately, especially in a startup, there aren't many friendly ways of saying "Hey, CEO, I think you're sucking at leading and sales. What gives?" Especially if you're an early employee and not in the elevated founder class.

Yea, It can get you fired. I've seen it happen. This article is too idealistic, and doesn't take into account businesses have business politics or peoples ego's.

You realize that this article is from a pretty noted VC, right? He's pretty familiar with reality.

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#48

Post by q2 »

jnem wrote: post #11
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.

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.

If you visit a doctor with a problem, will you go along with possible solutions or you will point out problem and expect solution from doctor?

If you are QA engineer, you will point out issues with the tool but making reasonable and appropriate solution is developer's job. Is n't it?

You can point out the problems with your car but you cannot fix them and may be mechanic/engineer can offer solutions.

So I disagree that people should not point out issues if they do not know solutions.

CEO's need not have to solve all on their own and they can route them to appropriate experts for solutions. If that is not possible to solve immediately, offer a time line. If CEO still think, that is not problem/issue at all, let him offer convincing reason. So we have multiple options here rather than suppressing discussion.

Many managers use this type of logic to suppress debate,dissent,discussion ...etc and gradually people shut their mouths even if problem is right in front of their eyes. I think this is avoidable.

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#49

Post by q2 »

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…

>>> Oh, and be sure to get your regular work done too.

In a fixed day, is it possible to do regular work and also extra projects?

I think, if offered solution appears reasonable to management,then some of daily responsibilities need to be shifted to remaining workforce temporarily till that pilot work gets completed.

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#50

Post by thomasatethose »

pnathan wrote: post #47
MollyR wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, It can get you fired. I've seen it happen. This article is too idealistic, and doesn't take into account businesses have business politics or peoples ego's.

You realize that this article is from a pretty noted VC, right? He's pretty familiar with reality.

is vc behavior homogenous? probably not. I think both pieces of advice are valid. know who you are dealing with, and if you don't know make the error on the safe side.
Post reply on HN