11 ms·

How to Be a C.E.O., From a Decade’s Worth of Them

215 points by dsr12 9y ago

ejnulls 9y ago
>"I can find interest in a lot of different things and try to put that to work in a positive way, connecting the dots and considering how the pieces fit together..." I've always felt the same way, I can get excited about sweeping floors if there's a challenge there (how to optimally sweep the floors of a massive factory for example) yet I always have to express how "passionate" I am about some company/service/programming language/etc. Is this because I typically interview with middle management? For those at the top of the chain, do you still have to BS about your passion? Or can you just be excited to be challenged and make money?
zappo2938 9y ago
One CEO says when hiring he asks if the applicant thinks she is smart or hard working. The only correct answer is hard working. Later in the article another CEO at a college job fair looks at a plain resume and asks what the kid has been doing with his time. The kid says he drives home and works Friday, Saturday, and Sunday at his family's diner all weekend returning to school on Monday morning. I used to work on a massive private yacht. I'm cleaning and polishing the outside making it look pretty for all the passerby's to admire after we arrived at the marina at Atlantis in the Bahamas. A tourist perhaps in his early 40s with a family stops me to ask "How do I achieve getting my own yacht?" I said what everyone says, hard work. He scoffed at me and replied that he works very hard in technology in Vegas. He works 50+ hours a week and that he will never realize a yacht like this. It's not hard work. That's not the answer. It's something else. After working 6 years on private yachts my best guess is that the people who own the yachts hire people who know what they are doing, they provide those people with the resources they need, and they stay out of their way. They do not micromanage. The writer mentions Ray Dalio and his hundreds of principles for working at his firm, Bridgewater Associates. Maybe, but the big thing to take away from Dalio's principles is not to micromanage. He has built an algorithm to make decisions based on merit of each employee's history of making the correct decision. [0] "In order to be an effective investor, one has to bet against the consensus and be right." He has established a way to quantify merit, which I think is similar the democratization of the stock market itself. [0] https://www.ted.com/talks/ray_dalio_how_to_build_a_company_where_the_best_ideas_win https://www.ted.com/talks/ray_dalio_how_to_build_a_company_w...
- xzel 9y ago
  At Bridgewater, its not exactly just not micromanaging, that is one of the parts. Its more along the lines of knowing when to manage, specifically where the fine line is between micromanaging and "true managing", removing people who aren't performing (firing or getting them into the correct role), getting people leverage that they need (that is supporting them in the way they need) and escalating to other management "correctly". Management is finding the right balance of all of that to allow a subordinate to achieve their potential. Source: I worked there once upon a time.
  - zappo2938 9y ago
    >>Management is finding the right balance of all of that to allow a subordinate to achieve their potential. Do you mean giving guidance instead of micromanaging which means "to control every part, however small." The problem with micromanagement comes from one person making all the decisions for her subordinates. Whereas, it makes more sense for productivity to spread the decision making across many people. Another problem that micromanagement causes is subordinates not having confidence in the decisions they do make. So people who are otherwise smart and hard working find their time wasted in second guessing themselves not able to make a decision. Micromanage is very different than guidance which means "advice or information aimed at resolving a problem or difficulty." Perhaps, a better way to describe what Ray Dalio is offering is guidance and based on listening to that video his principles are more suggestions than demands. More importantly, with a grain of humility, Ray encourages guidance coming from below encouraging his subordinates to offer guidance to him. This is very different from micromanagement which is unidirectional. The CEO should be making the most major business decisions for the company. However, it is the responsibility of the the employees to realize that vision. The person welding shouldn't have to know about markets. However, the very wealthy people I have interacted with would never go into the galley and tell me how to bake a cake. They would say they have guests flying in and would I make something a little more special to impress them. To expand on what you are saying. Perhaps, one of the ways to support a subordinate is to offer guidance. The keyword I make here is offer or perhaps a better word, proffer, to offer for acceptance meaning it is ok for the subordinate to reject the guidance. My experience is that these CEOs hire people who know what they are doing, provide them with the resources they need, and stay out of their way. However, if the subordinate does not produce the CEOs do not micromanage. They simply let them go or move them into a more appropriate position. Being a CEO is more than not micromanaging but my experience observing several CEOs including a few billionaires closely is that they strikingly don't waste their time micromanaging. If someone needs to be micromanaged, they are let go.
TaylorGood 9y ago
Thanks for this.
- TaylorGood 9y ago
  Downvoted, only commented as a way to reference this later. Has HN considered a bookmark or favorites feature like dBforums?
  - grzm 9y ago
    HN does have a "favorite" feature. Click on the timestamp of the comment and you should see a "favorite" link. There's a similar link for submissions. Favorites can be referenced via your profile page. Or are you thinking of something other than this?
  - Mz 9y ago
    If you go into your own profile, the bottom two lines show items you upvoted or favorited. Upvotes are private. Favorites are public.
  - pc86 9y ago
    Your browser has its own bookmark feature, use that.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
0xbear 9y ago
Our CEO is strictly a 9 to 5 dude. CTO, too. And this is at a startup, I imagine if this was an established company, they wouldn’t even show up. In general they just push the responsibility onto the people who are willing to take it, and then claim credit for their success. That, in short, is how to be a C*O.
- MsMowz 9y ago
  Is it bad to be a 9 to 5 executive? That sounds great from the perspective of the people working there, because then there isn't a culture of overwork.
  - 0xbear 9y ago
    It kind of is if you demand more than that from everyone else. A peon is killing himself for 0.5% equity while you’re sitting pretty on a 40% stake. It’s not like people are dumb or blind.
    - wolco 9y ago
      Hopefully you have a salary you are happy with. If you decided to take .5% instead of money you are are betting on the company, at 40% the CEO is putting a bigger bet. The success of the company is something they are responsible for and if it fails it direct affects them and their career prospects. A failed company doesn't reflect badly on a developer and does not follow them into interviews.
      - 0xbear 9y ago
        My stake is considerably larger than that. It’s what we’re offering to a great new hire. Guys in their mid 20’s, super talented, but nevertheless don’t have a clue. And enough with this “making a bet” bullshit. Founders aren’t betting their own money, and they are getting paid considerable salaries for their work. IOW they aren’t risking anything. Not even opportunity cost.
        9y ago
contingencies 9y ago
CEO = Communal Evangelist + door-Opener
PeOe 9y ago
“Both of my great occasions in life happened by accident simply because I showed up.” Loving this quote. It´s so true actually. If you don´t put yourself out there and go network or go to events, it´s quite difficult to stumble upon new opportunities. You might just get the chance to get your foot in the door somewhere. This can also be referred to the "online and social media space" - if you don´t put yourself out there (eg.on Linkedin) people are never going to recognize you and your work. In my opinion, you can work as hard as you want, if no one actually sees it and values it, it´s still a waste of time.
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  All of my job opportunities have come about because I just happened to be in the right place, working with the right people at the right time. Luck is an enormous part of success, despite how much people would like to think it's all hard work and determination.
  - SuperGent 9y ago
    Yes, but it's about 'making' luck or, more accurately, taking advantage of luck when it does come. If you don't get out there then you can't be in the right place at the right time!
    - PeOe 9y ago
      Yeah, exactly. That´s what I meant. If you don´t put yourself out there, stumbling across a great opportunity becomes rather unlikely. What I always ask myself is, if that phenomenon should really be called luck. I mean, if you´re at an event already that a lot of interesting people attend, then it´s very likely you´re gonna get to know someone "interesting". Like you´re already better than "the ones on the couch". Because I guess luck is something you don´t really get to have an influence on. Do you understand what I mean?
goatherders 9y ago
My last CEO was a great leader, except he showed up at 10am most days. Employees saw him get to work 90 minutes after they did. They didn't see that he stayed until 9p most nights since most of them were gone by 530. He lost the respect of the employees because he never understood that the example he set was visual. And he got fired despite the executives who worked closely with him all thinking he did a great job.
- wolco 9y ago
  I am sure the respect of his employees had nothing to do with why he was fired.
  - pc86 9y ago
    I've never worked for an executive who didn't take note of how they and their superiors were viewed by their employees. The bad ones don't care, but they all at least follow it.
- BartSaM 9y ago
  Sounds like a work culture and "top" in your workplace might be not too healthy then. CEO's should deliver results and help the company grow. If they have issues with him coming to work at 10 am, then the work culture should be adjusted imo for people to understand what it takes for him to deliver results.
- tormeh 9y ago
  Wow, that's pretty bad. That's people I guess. Though maybe that CEO now has a job where he doesn't need to stay until 9, which is probably a win for him...
crush-n-spread 9y ago
Lots of comments here about how to be a successful CEO. We should all be looking at Elon Musk as the prime example. Work 120 hour work weeks when the going is tough, 100 hour weeks when the going's good, and if you're just starting out, spend every waking hour on your product/company. If you do this, people will tell you you're insane, and you'll eventually stop. That's why Elon is different, because he cannot stop. I feel that this alone explains 90% of the CEO question - who can choose to stop and who cannot choose to stop.
- nefitty 9y ago
  So are you saying this is an inherent quality of certain individuals? If so, what can we learn from Musk in that case? I hope there are things he does that I can implement in my life, and that I'm not relegated to wishing I was born more "Muskian".
  - indubitable 9y ago
    I think this is why it's far more important to try to find your own path to success than to emulate others' paths. People are inherently different. In the physical realm this is completely self evident. It's far from controversial to acknowledge that you could train day in day out for years at a sport and never be even remotely comparable to even a middling professional in one of those sports. And whilst we try to ignore it in the mental domains, the same is no doubt true. So ultimately I think the key to success is to find what you personally do well at and leverage that into your own path to success. While keeping with the one constant in advice - the first time you fall, which you will, get up and try again.
- yters 9y ago
  Are any of his companies profitable?
panic 9y ago
The article never really explains why you'd want to be a CEO. Are most CEOs satisfied with their job?
- jpatokal 9y ago
  Money, power and prestige is a pretty attractive triumvirate of reasons to be a CEO.
  - mhotchen 9y ago
    I think 'power' here sounds negative (probably not intentionally), but remember with power comes the ability to make meaningful change and have a real impact.
  - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
    Yet yearning for that might not make you best placed for the role.
    - Amygaz 9y ago
      Probably why there are so few good CEO
  - jorangreef 9y ago
    "To serve people" - is a far more attractive reason to be a CEO and a far more likely reason to succeed massively as a CEO. Most business books focus on the "how", but the "why" is critical for a CEO. Money, power and prestige are byproducts and make very poor motivators in themselves. A CEO motivated by money, power and prestige (even those who naively pretend second order effects) will likely make suboptimal decisions. "If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all."
    - tormeh 9y ago
      Have you heard of Larry Ellison?

215 points by dsr12 9y ago

>"I can find interest in a lot of different things and try to put that to work in a positive way, connecting the dots and considering how the pieces fit together..." I've always felt the same way, I can get excited about sweeping floors if there's a challenge there (how to optimally sweep the floors of a massive factory for example) yet I always have to express how "passionate" I am about some company/service/programming language/etc. Is this because I typically interview with middle management? For those at the top of the chain, do you still have to BS about your passion? Or can you just be excited to be challenged and make money?

zappo2938 9y ago

One CEO says when hiring he asks if the applicant thinks she is smart or hard working. The only correct answer is hard working. Later in the article another CEO at a college job fair looks at a plain resume and asks what the kid has been doing with his time. The kid says he drives home and works Friday, Saturday, and Sunday at his family's diner all weekend returning to school on Monday morning. I used to work on a massive private yacht. I'm cleaning and polishing the outside making it look pretty for all the passerby's to admire after we arrived at the marina at Atlantis in the Bahamas. A tourist perhaps in his early 40s with a family stops me to ask "How do I achieve getting my own yacht?" I said what everyone says, hard work. He scoffed at me and replied that he works very hard in technology in Vegas. He works 50+ hours a week and that he will never realize a yacht like this. It's not hard work. That's not the answer. It's something else. After working 6 years on private yachts my best guess is that the people who own the yachts hire people who know what they are doing, they provide those people with the resources they need, and they stay out of their way. They do not micromanage. The writer mentions Ray Dalio and his hundreds of principles for working at his firm, Bridgewater Associates. Maybe, but the big thing to take away from Dalio's principles is not to micromanage. He has built an algorithm to make decisions based on merit of each employee's history of making the correct decision. [0] "In order to be an effective investor, one has to bet against the consensus and be right." He has established a way to quantify merit, which I think is similar the democratization of the stock market itself. [0] https://www.ted.com/talks/ray_dalio_how_to_build_a_company_where_the_best_ideas_win https://www.ted.com/talks/ray_dalio_how_to_build_a_company_w...

xzel 9y ago
At Bridgewater, its not exactly just not micromanaging, that is one of the parts. Its more along the lines of knowing when to manage, specifically where the fine line is between micromanaging and "true managing", removing people who aren't performing (firing or getting them into the correct role), getting people leverage that they need (that is supporting them in the way they need) and escalating to other management "correctly". Management is finding the right balance of all of that to allow a subordinate to achieve their potential. Source: I worked there once upon a time.
- zappo2938 9y ago
  >>Management is finding the right balance of all of that to allow a subordinate to achieve their potential. Do you mean giving guidance instead of micromanaging which means "to control every part, however small." The problem with micromanagement comes from one person making all the decisions for her subordinates. Whereas, it makes more sense for productivity to spread the decision making across many people. Another problem that micromanagement causes is subordinates not having confidence in the decisions they do make. So people who are otherwise smart and hard working find their time wasted in second guessing themselves not able to make a decision. Micromanage is very different than guidance which means "advice or information aimed at resolving a problem or difficulty." Perhaps, a better way to describe what Ray Dalio is offering is guidance and based on listening to that video his principles are more suggestions than demands. More importantly, with a grain of humility, Ray encourages guidance coming from below encouraging his subordinates to offer guidance to him. This is very different from micromanagement which is unidirectional. The CEO should be making the most major business decisions for the company. However, it is the responsibility of the the employees to realize that vision. The person welding shouldn't have to know about markets. However, the very wealthy people I have interacted with would never go into the galley and tell me how to bake a cake. They would say they have guests flying in and would I make something a little more special to impress them. To expand on what you are saying. Perhaps, one of the ways to support a subordinate is to offer guidance. The keyword I make here is offer or perhaps a better word, proffer, to offer for acceptance meaning it is ok for the subordinate to reject the guidance. My experience is that these CEOs hire people who know what they are doing, provide them with the resources they need, and stay out of their way. However, if the subordinate does not produce the CEOs do not micromanage. They simply let them go or move them into a more appropriate position. Being a CEO is more than not micromanaging but my experience observing several CEOs including a few billionaires closely is that they strikingly don't waste their time micromanaging. If someone needs to be micromanaged, they are let go.

TaylorGood 9y ago

Thanks for this.

TaylorGood 9y ago
Downvoted, only commented as a way to reference this later. Has HN considered a bookmark or favorites feature like dBforums?
- grzm 9y ago
  HN does have a "favorite" feature. Click on the timestamp of the comment and you should see a "favorite" link. There's a similar link for submissions. Favorites can be referenced via your profile page. Or are you thinking of something other than this?
- Mz 9y ago
  If you go into your own profile, the bottom two lines show items you upvoted or favorited. Upvotes are private. Favorites are public.
- pc86 9y ago
  Your browser has its own bookmark feature, use that.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

0xbear 9y ago

Our CEO is strictly a 9 to 5 dude. CTO, too. And this is at a startup, I imagine if this was an established company, they wouldn’t even show up. In general they just push the responsibility onto the people who are willing to take it, and then claim credit for their success. That, in short, is how to be a C*O.

MsMowz 9y ago
Is it bad to be a 9 to 5 executive? That sounds great from the perspective of the people working there, because then there isn't a culture of overwork.
- 0xbear 9y ago
  It kind of is if you demand more than that from everyone else. A peon is killing himself for 0.5% equity while you’re sitting pretty on a 40% stake. It’s not like people are dumb or blind.
  - wolco 9y ago
    Hopefully you have a salary you are happy with. If you decided to take .5% instead of money you are are betting on the company, at 40% the CEO is putting a bigger bet. The success of the company is something they are responsible for and if it fails it direct affects them and their career prospects. A failed company doesn't reflect badly on a developer and does not follow them into interviews.
    - 0xbear 9y ago
      My stake is considerably larger than that. It’s what we’re offering to a great new hire. Guys in their mid 20’s, super talented, but nevertheless don’t have a clue. And enough with this “making a bet” bullshit. Founders aren’t betting their own money, and they are getting paid considerable salaries for their work. IOW they aren’t risking anything. Not even opportunity cost.
      - 9y ago

contingencies 9y ago

CEO = Communal Evangelist + door-Opener

PeOe 9y ago

“Both of my great occasions in life happened by accident simply because I showed up.” Loving this quote. It´s so true actually. If you don´t put yourself out there and go network or go to events, it´s quite difficult to stumble upon new opportunities. You might just get the chance to get your foot in the door somewhere. This can also be referred to the "online and social media space" - if you don´t put yourself out there (eg.on Linkedin) people are never going to recognize you and your work. In my opinion, you can work as hard as you want, if no one actually sees it and values it, it´s still a waste of time.

KozmoNau7 9y ago
All of my job opportunities have come about because I just happened to be in the right place, working with the right people at the right time. Luck is an enormous part of success, despite how much people would like to think it's all hard work and determination.
- SuperGent 9y ago
  Yes, but it's about 'making' luck or, more accurately, taking advantage of luck when it does come. If you don't get out there then you can't be in the right place at the right time!
  - PeOe 9y ago
    Yeah, exactly. That´s what I meant. If you don´t put yourself out there, stumbling across a great opportunity becomes rather unlikely. What I always ask myself is, if that phenomenon should really be called luck. I mean, if you´re at an event already that a lot of interesting people attend, then it´s very likely you´re gonna get to know someone "interesting". Like you´re already better than "the ones on the couch". Because I guess luck is something you don´t really get to have an influence on. Do you understand what I mean?

goatherders 9y ago

My last CEO was a great leader, except he showed up at 10am most days. Employees saw him get to work 90 minutes after they did. They didn't see that he stayed until 9p most nights since most of them were gone by 530. He lost the respect of the employees because he never understood that the example he set was visual. And he got fired despite the executives who worked closely with him all thinking he did a great job.

wolco 9y ago
I am sure the respect of his employees had nothing to do with why he was fired.
- pc86 9y ago
  I've never worked for an executive who didn't take note of how they and their superiors were viewed by their employees. The bad ones don't care, but they all at least follow it.
BartSaM 9y ago
Sounds like a work culture and "top" in your workplace might be not too healthy then. CEO's should deliver results and help the company grow. If they have issues with him coming to work at 10 am, then the work culture should be adjusted imo for people to understand what it takes for him to deliver results.
tormeh 9y ago
Wow, that's pretty bad. That's people I guess. Though maybe that CEO now has a job where he doesn't need to stay until 9, which is probably a win for him...

crush-n-spread 9y ago

Lots of comments here about how to be a successful CEO. We should all be looking at Elon Musk as the prime example. Work 120 hour work weeks when the going is tough, 100 hour weeks when the going's good, and if you're just starting out, spend every waking hour on your product/company. If you do this, people will tell you you're insane, and you'll eventually stop. That's why Elon is different, because he cannot stop. I feel that this alone explains 90% of the CEO question - who can choose to stop and who cannot choose to stop.

nefitty 9y ago
So are you saying this is an inherent quality of certain individuals? If so, what can we learn from Musk in that case? I hope there are things he does that I can implement in my life, and that I'm not relegated to wishing I was born more "Muskian".
- indubitable 9y ago
  I think this is why it's far more important to try to find your own path to success than to emulate others' paths. People are inherently different. In the physical realm this is completely self evident. It's far from controversial to acknowledge that you could train day in day out for years at a sport and never be even remotely comparable to even a middling professional in one of those sports. And whilst we try to ignore it in the mental domains, the same is no doubt true. So ultimately I think the key to success is to find what you personally do well at and leverage that into your own path to success. While keeping with the one constant in advice - the first time you fall, which you will, get up and try again.
yters 9y ago
Are any of his companies profitable?

panic 9y ago

The article never really explains why you'd want to be a CEO. Are most CEOs satisfied with their job?

jpatokal 9y ago
Money, power and prestige is a pretty attractive triumvirate of reasons to be a CEO.
- mhotchen 9y ago
  I think 'power' here sounds negative (probably not intentionally), but remember with power comes the ability to make meaningful change and have a real impact.
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  Yet yearning for that might not make you best placed for the role.
  - Amygaz 9y ago
    Probably why there are so few good CEO
- jorangreef 9y ago
  "To serve people" - is a far more attractive reason to be a CEO and a far more likely reason to succeed massively as a CEO. Most business books focus on the "how", but the "why" is critical for a CEO. Money, power and prestige are byproducts and make very poor motivators in themselves. A CEO motivated by money, power and prestige (even those who naively pretend second order effects) will likely make suboptimal decisions. "If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all."
  - tormeh 9y ago
    Have you heard of Larry Ellison?