4 ms·
You are oversimplifying this to the point where your conclusion is almost completely wrong. There are many factors which contribute to the decline of companies.
by blahi 10y ago
You are oversimplifying this to the point where your conclusion is almost completely wrong. There are many factors which contribute to the decline of companies. For example there was an article about Kodak on HN and why it failed. The inertia was too strong in that case. Differences in goals and objectives is another very popular reason.
I understand it's tempting to think your bosses are morons but they rarely are.
- dkarapetyan 10y agoSo if Kodak leadership was full of geniuses how come it failed? Companies often get large not because of leadership but because they happen to be at the right place at the right time with the right idea. Plenty of people have the right idea but they rarely happen to be at the right place and time.
- blahi 10y agoI pointed you out (sort of) to why Kodak failed. It had MASSIVE facilities with 10s of thousands of employees making industrial chemicals. You cannot snap your fingers and transition to another business model.
- dkarapetyan 10y agoIndeed. Why do you think a giant software company is any different? Having incompetent leadership just exasperates the problem. Your assumption was intelligence of leadership somehow mattered and I pointed out you are incorrect. Leadership intelligence doesn't matter as much as people think.
- blahi 10y ago- Leadership at large companies are not morons. - Why Kodak failed then? - Kodak failed because of inertia. - Leadership intelligence doesn't matter. Do you hear that? That's the sound of the logic chain breaking.
- dkarapetyan 10y agoDon't hear it. All I hear is someone that thinks leadership at large companies can make a difference. Oh wait, I did hear a logic chain breaking there. The break was caused by some kind of pre-conceived notions about leaders making a difference.
- blahi 10y agoCan't help you if logic falls on deaf ears.