4 ms·

No one said that professional CEOs always fail. I said it's a bad sign when one is hired. Are you arguing it's a good sign, or that tech companies do better wit

No one said that professional CEOs always fail. I said it's a bad sign when one is hired. Are you arguing it's a good sign, or that tech companies do better with non-founder managers?

joshdickson 10y ago
Yes, and I am telling you that is an ignorant stereotype. Edit: You've edited your response so many times I can't keep up. I am not arguing any point of view. You unilaterally said that it is always a bad sign when a company brings in an experienced CEO. That is an ignorant stereotype. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail. Sometimes it's a smart hire, sometimes it's not. The late Dave Goldberg taking the reigns at SurveyMonkey was an incredible turning point for the company.
- kapitalx 10y ago
  Also in this case the CEO is staying on as CTO which is a good sign that this is a strategic hire rather than some internal issues leading to ousting of the CEO.
  - joshdickson 10y ago
    Founder CEO staying on as quasi CTO while professional CEOs are brought in? Nobody tell OP about what Larry Ellison's done with Mark Hurd and Safra Catz.
- simula67 10y ago
  The parent said it was a sign, not a certainty. If it is a stereotype, it is not an ignorant one.
  - joshdickson 10y ago
    The parent unilaterally said that it was a bad sign. That is an expression of certainty. Not 'it could be a bad sign,' or 'I believe it's a bad sign,' but 'it is a bad sign.' That is demonstrably and obviously false. I know what they said, and what they said is a ridiculous, stereotypical view of the value of professional managers who often lend far more value than technical people want to give them credit for.
    - simula67 10y ago
      If you want to point out the kind of value professional managers bring to the table, please do so. Such an approach, in my opinion, makes the debate productive and moves the discussion forward. I feel "professional" managers are bad for tech companies. Here are two reasons : 1. A lot of management techniques that are taught in business schools apply to traditional manufacturing based businesses. A lot of these underlying assumptions are invalid in the tech businesses. 2. Tech businesses require a deep understanding of what is possible with the current state of the art. This is requires a deep understanding of technology so that when there are fundamental changes to the landscape (which happens more frequently in tech) the company can adapt and stay relevant.
      - joshdickson 10y ago
        There is no discussion. OP made an incorrect, absolutist statement that was ignorant and demonstrably false and I am pointing that out. Your view, frankly, is just as ignorant. You assume that world-class business schools like HBS only teach things that apply to traditional manufacturing businesses... Perhaps you ought to look at what a management student learns before asserting that. It's an incorrect viewpoint. The comment below this is literally an HBS article stating that professional managers are actually often better for the company than being founder-led. We cannot have a discussion that goes anywhere if one side of it is (1) anecdotal feelings that are not backed by research and (2) demonstrably false and ignorant statements.
kornish 10y ago
There's actually a study ("Rich vs King", [1]) by HBS showing that, controlling for other factors, bringing in a professional CEO can actually maximize the value of the founders' equity. [1]: http://www.people.hbs.edu/nwasserman/rich_vs_king-proceedings_with_abstract.pdf http://www.people.hbs.edu/nwasserman/rich_vs_king-proceeding...

No one said that professional CEOs always fail. I said it's a bad sign when one is hired. Are you arguing it's a good sign, or that tech companies do better with non-founder managers?

joshdickson 10y ago

Yes, and I am telling you that is an ignorant stereotype. Edit: You've edited your response so many times I can't keep up. I am not arguing any point of view. You unilaterally said that it is always a bad sign when a company brings in an experienced CEO. That is an ignorant stereotype. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail. Sometimes it's a smart hire, sometimes it's not. The late Dave Goldberg taking the reigns at SurveyMonkey was an incredible turning point for the company.

kapitalx 10y ago
Also in this case the CEO is staying on as CTO which is a good sign that this is a strategic hire rather than some internal issues leading to ousting of the CEO.
- joshdickson 10y ago
  Founder CEO staying on as quasi CTO while professional CEOs are brought in? Nobody tell OP about what Larry Ellison's done with Mark Hurd and Safra Catz.
simula67 10y ago
The parent said it was a sign, not a certainty. If it is a stereotype, it is not an ignorant one.
- joshdickson 10y ago
  The parent unilaterally said that it was a bad sign. That is an expression of certainty. Not 'it could be a bad sign,' or 'I believe it's a bad sign,' but 'it is a bad sign.' That is demonstrably and obviously false. I know what they said, and what they said is a ridiculous, stereotypical view of the value of professional managers who often lend far more value than technical people want to give them credit for.
  - simula67 10y ago
    If you want to point out the kind of value professional managers bring to the table, please do so. Such an approach, in my opinion, makes the debate productive and moves the discussion forward. I feel "professional" managers are bad for tech companies. Here are two reasons : 1. A lot of management techniques that are taught in business schools apply to traditional manufacturing based businesses. A lot of these underlying assumptions are invalid in the tech businesses. 2. Tech businesses require a deep understanding of what is possible with the current state of the art. This is requires a deep understanding of technology so that when there are fundamental changes to the landscape (which happens more frequently in tech) the company can adapt and stay relevant.
    - joshdickson 10y ago
      There is no discussion. OP made an incorrect, absolutist statement that was ignorant and demonstrably false and I am pointing that out. Your view, frankly, is just as ignorant. You assume that world-class business schools like HBS only teach things that apply to traditional manufacturing businesses... Perhaps you ought to look at what a management student learns before asserting that. It's an incorrect viewpoint. The comment below this is literally an HBS article stating that professional managers are actually often better for the company than being founder-led. We cannot have a discussion that goes anywhere if one side of it is (1) anecdotal feelings that are not backed by research and (2) demonstrably false and ignorant statements.

kornish 10y ago

There's actually a study ("Rich vs King", [1]) by HBS showing that, controlling for other factors, bringing in a professional CEO can actually maximize the value of the founders' equity. [1]: http://www.people.hbs.edu/nwasserman/rich_vs_king-proceedings_with_abstract.pdf http://www.people.hbs.edu/nwasserman/rich_vs_king-proceeding...