4 ms·

Some of the books look interesting. I am, however, dubious about Jack Welch as a role model. Steve Ballmer's adoption of Welch's employee performance system di

by kabdib 10y ago

Some of the books look interesting. I am, however, dubious about Jack Welch as a role model. Steve Ballmer's adoption of Welch's employee performance system did more damage to Microsoft than any other single policy I can think of. So, for one book at least, "meh" with a couple levels of indirection. Some of the others are on my list, though. (I thought that The Making of the President by Theodore White was really good. It's helpful to remind ourselves that politics has always been a crappy scene, and that we shouldn't expect things to be automatically any better today than they were 50 years ago).

doh 10y ago
Hopefully people are intelligent enough to know not to take any advice, no matter if it comes from a book or a person, too literally. I read Welch's books and it was inspiring. Doesn't mean I ran back to my employees and enforced everything I read. BTW I agree that some of the management styles were proven harmful. You can say the same about Andy Grove's management though. Times changed, society evolved. Still very helpful to know what was tried and what worked at what time
- miles 10y ago
  "Hopefully people are intelligent enough to know not to take any advice, no matter if it comes from a book or a person, too literally." Ironically, Buffett is quoted in the article as saying, "We don't read other people's opinions. We want to get the facts, and then think."
  - doh 10y ago
    True to that. But ones opinion should be shaped by others, not acquired. My rule of thumb is to never turn more than 90° based on one single feedback/fact. It's far from perfect but helps with the overload of mis/informations. Instead of questioning everything and researching on my own, I just moderate the "intake".
- maxxxxx 10y ago
  I remember reading the Welch book and finding it terrible. It seemed to me mainly a litany of great things he did and great people he hired. No real insight, just an egotist full of himself. Maybe am I just too low on the totem pole to appreciate his way of thinking?
  - triangleman 10y ago
    I had the same feeling about that book.
dogma1138 10y ago
Often it's worth reading something you disagree with just to understand the thought process behind it, if nothing else than not to make the same mistake if you are utterly against it.
Jugurtha 10y ago
>I am, however, dubious about Jack Welch as a role model. Steve Ballmer's adoption of Welch's employee performance system did more damage to Microsoft than any other single policy I can think of. I think people can apply something as clear as an equation the wrong way, let alone what a person says. Just because I can't make the maths work doesn't mean mathematics don't work. Maybe I'm just clumsy. I've become aware of the resentment some people have towards Welch after reading "Winning" (which I liked a lot). I'm not familiar with the controversy, but from what I have seen, Welch is revered by a lot of people too. It appears GE's valuation increased 4000% when he was at the helm. Though the S&P was +1400% in 2000 with respect to 1980. A bull market. Here's GE under Welch during the boom: https://www.dropbox.com/s/v4hgl8zpzrtg34k/Welch_GE_SP.png?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/v4hgl8zpzrtg34k/Welch_GE_SP.png?dl... Here's GE from 2001 when he left (dealing with two crashes must have been terrible for Immelt): https://www.dropbox.com/s/k6gk4vztyzvxnp0/GE_2001_2016.png?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/k6gk4vztyzvxnp0/GE_2001_2016.png?d...
- YZF 10y ago
  CEOs ability to impact a large company performance is very limited. Most likely GE's performance is explained by it's history, luck and/or leverage. I also read Welch's books and am not a big fan, pretty standard MBA (though I don't think Jack ever got one), manage by buzzword, process oriented stuff. Still an interesting read but I wouldn't jump to a conclusion that by applying Jack's ideas you are going to get your company to those 4000% valuation increase.
  - sumedh 10y ago
    > CEOs ability to impact a large company performance is very limited. How would you explain the relationship between Apple and Steve Jobs.
    - YZF 10y ago
      So for one thing correlation does not equate causation. Steve Jobs was co-founder of Apple, not just a CEO taking on some random company. So Apple was to some extent his creation and he has guided that creation towards some of his goals from the beginning. He had influence on the culture, what kind of people got hired, etc. from day 1. That said luck certainly played a significant role. The economy played a role. He was at the right place at the right time (and more than once at that). At the end of the day you can always back-splain any success story but for every successful Steve Jobs there can be 100 failed Steve Jobs's that didn't have the lucky circumstances and you've never heard of. Our mind likes to believe the "Story" of Steve Jobs but that's us after the fact. Take Steve Jobs to a different company in a different era and the outcome could have been different. He's definitely special in many ways but anyone who has worked for a large company knows there are lots of factors that a CEO is unable to control, most factors for that matter, and there are lots of people who could potentially be just as successful as the CEO that hits gold. http://www.inc.com/will-yakowicz/study-luck-looking-the-part-relative-intelligence-makes-the-ceo.html http://www.inc.com/will-yakowicz/study-luck-looking-the-part... EDIT: So another thought is that there's certainly some value in looking at the success stories and finding commonalities, including qualities of management. But to look at single data point of a successful company and attribute that to some management philosophy (let's say "Six Sigma", or only being in the business that you're #1 at) and then try to take that into a different situations is not science, it's religion. There are people who are very successful (let's say Buffet) or inspiring (let's say Obama) but I don't think any of that boils down to a recipe or guarantees of success. It's just not simple cause and effect. Even though we want to believe otherwise...

by kabdib 10y ago

doh 10y ago

Hopefully people are intelligent enough to know not to take any advice, no matter if it comes from a book or a person, too literally. I read Welch's books and it was inspiring. Doesn't mean I ran back to my employees and enforced everything I read. BTW I agree that some of the management styles were proven harmful. You can say the same about Andy Grove's management though. Times changed, society evolved. Still very helpful to know what was tried and what worked at what time

miles 10y ago
"Hopefully people are intelligent enough to know not to take any advice, no matter if it comes from a book or a person, too literally." Ironically, Buffett is quoted in the article as saying, "We don't read other people's opinions. We want to get the facts, and then think."
- doh 10y ago
  True to that. But ones opinion should be shaped by others, not acquired. My rule of thumb is to never turn more than 90° based on one single feedback/fact. It's far from perfect but helps with the overload of mis/informations. Instead of questioning everything and researching on my own, I just moderate the "intake".
maxxxxx 10y ago
I remember reading the Welch book and finding it terrible. It seemed to me mainly a litany of great things he did and great people he hired. No real insight, just an egotist full of himself. Maybe am I just too low on the totem pole to appreciate his way of thinking?
- triangleman 10y ago
  I had the same feeling about that book.

dogma1138 10y ago

Often it's worth reading something you disagree with just to understand the thought process behind it, if nothing else than not to make the same mistake if you are utterly against it.

Jugurtha 10y ago

>I am, however, dubious about Jack Welch as a role model. Steve Ballmer's adoption of Welch's employee performance system did more damage to Microsoft than any other single policy I can think of. I think people can apply something as clear as an equation the wrong way, let alone what a person says. Just because I can't make the maths work doesn't mean mathematics don't work. Maybe I'm just clumsy. I've become aware of the resentment some people have towards Welch after reading "Winning" (which I liked a lot). I'm not familiar with the controversy, but from what I have seen, Welch is revered by a lot of people too. It appears GE's valuation increased 4000% when he was at the helm. Though the S&P was +1400% in 2000 with respect to 1980. A bull market. Here's GE under Welch during the boom: https://www.dropbox.com/s/v4hgl8zpzrtg34k/Welch_GE_SP.png?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/v4hgl8zpzrtg34k/Welch_GE_SP.png?dl... Here's GE from 2001 when he left (dealing with two crashes must have been terrible for Immelt): https://www.dropbox.com/s/k6gk4vztyzvxnp0/GE_2001_2016.png?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/k6gk4vztyzvxnp0/GE_2001_2016.png?d...

YZF 10y ago
CEOs ability to impact a large company performance is very limited. Most likely GE's performance is explained by it's history, luck and/or leverage. I also read Welch's books and am not a big fan, pretty standard MBA (though I don't think Jack ever got one), manage by buzzword, process oriented stuff. Still an interesting read but I wouldn't jump to a conclusion that by applying Jack's ideas you are going to get your company to those 4000% valuation increase.
- sumedh 10y ago
  > CEOs ability to impact a large company performance is very limited. How would you explain the relationship between Apple and Steve Jobs.
  - YZF 10y ago
    So for one thing correlation does not equate causation. Steve Jobs was co-founder of Apple, not just a CEO taking on some random company. So Apple was to some extent his creation and he has guided that creation towards some of his goals from the beginning. He had influence on the culture, what kind of people got hired, etc. from day 1. That said luck certainly played a significant role. The economy played a role. He was at the right place at the right time (and more than once at that). At the end of the day you can always back-splain any success story but for every successful Steve Jobs there can be 100 failed Steve Jobs's that didn't have the lucky circumstances and you've never heard of. Our mind likes to believe the "Story" of Steve Jobs but that's us after the fact. Take Steve Jobs to a different company in a different era and the outcome could have been different. He's definitely special in many ways but anyone who has worked for a large company knows there are lots of factors that a CEO is unable to control, most factors for that matter, and there are lots of people who could potentially be just as successful as the CEO that hits gold. http://www.inc.com/will-yakowicz/study-luck-looking-the-part-relative-intelligence-makes-the-ceo.html http://www.inc.com/will-yakowicz/study-luck-looking-the-part... EDIT: So another thought is that there's certainly some value in looking at the success stories and finding commonalities, including qualities of management. But to look at single data point of a successful company and attribute that to some management philosophy (let's say "Six Sigma", or only being in the business that you're #1 at) and then try to take that into a different situations is not science, it's religion. There are people who are very successful (let's say Buffet) or inspiring (let's say Obama) but I don't think any of that boils down to a recipe or guarantees of success. It's just not simple cause and effect. Even though we want to believe otherwise...