The Sad Truth About Developing Executives • Hacker News Board

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#61

Post by dasil003 » Thu, Mar 12, 2015, 4:01 AM UTC

sitkack wrote: post #45

mathattack wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What makes The Yankees special is that there are millions of baseball players, and thousands of teams around the world, and they all do exactly the same thing, so there is an objective measure that says the Yankees are the best.

However when it comes to companies and executive functions there are as many job descriptions as there are companies. We can quibble all day about the definition of world-class, but I think the article draws the right distinction between executives and employees. The rank and file will converge to average for any large company, but executives will always be a handful and receive outsized compensation, so it is reasonable to demand more from them than you could expect from everyone else.

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#62

Post by jkw » Thu, Mar 12, 2015, 8:17 AM UTC

Andreessen Horowitz has stated they like to develop founders into CEOs, rather than replace them with a professional CEO. If a founder CEO needs development, is no leniency for another exec to develop? What about co-founder non-CEO execs? Does this apply to them as well?

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#63

Post by UK-AL » Thu, Mar 12, 2015, 9:51 AM UTC

Problem is that the skillset to be CEO, and to be employee are different. The employee probably knows more about that area than a CEO, that's why you hired him.

Which why its so difficult to get on the path to be a ceo. The only way to really learn to be a CEO, is to be a CEO. And to get that chance you have to take risks, like founding.

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#64

Post by simonswords82 » Thu, Mar 12, 2015, 10:27 AM UTC

UK-AL wrote: post #63

Problem is that the skillset to be CEO, and to be employee are different. The employee probably knows more about that area than a CEO, that's why you hired him. Which why its so difficult to get on the path to be a ceo. The only way to really learn to be a CEO, is to be a CEO. And to get that chance you have to take risks, like founding.

Totally agree.

When I founded my software company 9 years ago I was 23 and to say I was wet behind the ears is an understatement. I didn't have the faintest idea about leaders versus managers, strategy, operations, procedure, policy, management of staff, performance management...the list goes on. I thought that these were all just bullshit words that people used to cover up the fact that they were sit at their jobs.

Nearly 10 years of trial and error and I'm now capable of operating as a CEO at board level. My management team are crazy good at what they do, so I'd like to think they wouldn't have stuck around if I wasn't any good!

What I'm bad at is ops and managing people but that's fine. I've learned the hard way that this isn't my forte and hired somebody better than me at that to do that job. Hiring better people than you is an old adage but so true.

There is a downside to being a founder and CEO. It makes you more or less unemployable in a typical employer/employee relationship.

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#65

Post by acjohnson55 » Thu, Mar 12, 2015, 10:57 AM UTC

So much sympathy here for the poor mid level executive. I don't think it's unreasonable to have unyielding expectations of the people you're presumably compensating an order of magnitude above the rank and file. They'd best be world class at something, otherwise how the hell have they made it to the C-suite?

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#66

Post by zhte415 » Thu, Mar 12, 2015, 11:16 AM UTC

harryh wrote: post #5

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.

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.

My company have this kind of activity each year. Teams of people from different functions identify problems, present them and their proposed solutions, what's thought needed to get it done. Present to everyone present including the GM. It can get pretty direct, but question asking and feedback are not allowed.

A month later, the chance to apply for any role (or create a new role) is offered to everyone in the organisation, again done so presenting to VPs and the GM.

I'd not encountered this in a large company; this company is around 150 people.

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#67

Post by withoutairs » Thu, Mar 12, 2015, 11:46 AM UTC

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…

Indeed. "The First 90 Days"[0] is a great book that provides a framework and techniques for being strategic when starting a new job.

0: http://www.amazon.com/The-First-90-Days-Strategies/dp/159139...

edit -- links, how do they work

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#68

Post by cauterized » Thu, Mar 12, 2015, 12:21 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #32

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 aroun…

Why is it that binary, though? Surely somewhere between "incompetent" and "world-class" there's space for execs who are "good enough to earn their reports' respect but with room to grow in a few areas"?

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#69

Post by PakG1 » Thu, Mar 12, 2015, 1:56 PM UTC

jkw wrote: post #62

Andreessen Horowitz has stated they like to develop founders into CEOs, rather than replace them with a professional CEO. If a founder CEO needs development, is no leniency for another exec to develop? What about co-founder non-CEO execs? Does this apply to them as well?

CEOs brought in from the outside are free agents. Founder CEOs (especially first-time founder CEOs) are draft picks. You don't bring in a free agent in order to develop them, unless they're a reclamation project, you were able to get them cheap, and you have a hole in your team that you really can't fill a better way. Rather, you bring in the free agent to elevate your team immediately and give you a shot at a championship trophy.

Re: The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

#70

Post by nostrademons » Thu, Mar 12, 2015, 3:03 PM UTC

cauterized wrote: post #68

nostrademons wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 aroun…

Why is it that binary, though? Surely somewhere between "incompetent" and "world-class" there's space for execs who are "good enough to earn their reports' respect but with room to grow in a few areas"?

It's not binary, from an objective perspective. The thing is, if you even think that his advice might apply to your situation, the exec in question has lost your respect. That means that they lost their reports' respect several months ago (the CEO is always the last to know), and you have a major problem on your hands.