5 ms·

I think the phrase you're looking for is "exceptions that prove the rule". For every CEO that took a company from nothing to 10k employees, there are so many mo

I think the phrase you're looking for is "exceptions that prove the rule". For every CEO that took a company from nothing to 10k employees, there are so many more examples of the opposite that you can't even begin to name them. You're able to name the exceptions because there are so few exceptions.

jjeaff 9y ago
But it is worthy of note that right now, the top 6 largest companies (by market cap) in the US are or were helmed by their founders well into their fortune 500 status with many thousands of employees.
- freehunter 9y ago
  It's also worthy of note that these companies are extreme statistical outliers. Not every company is fortunate enough to have someone like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates leading them.
- ck425 9y ago
  It's also worth noting that all these companies have experienced executive leaders who came on during the transition from 100 to 1000 people. They succeeded with a massive amount of support from experienced top executives. This seems to be the optimal approach, hire in top execs as COO or CEO (then later chairmen or other top advicer) while keeping the founders in the leadership team.
MereInterest 9y ago
That phrase is widely misused. The intended usage is where a rule is implied by the explicit stating of an exception. For example, a sign labeled "No Parking 9AM - 7PM" states an exception, and implies that parking is allowed outside of the time. The stating of the exception proves the existence of the more general rule. In this case, the appropriate term would be "survivorship bias". Those who survive are noticed and used to generalize to the group, even if their survival is atypical of the group as a whole.
- freehunter 9y ago
  According to Wikipedia, there are multiple ways to use the phrase. The way I used it is listed under "loose rhetorical sense".
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  The word "prove" has largely changed its meaning, it doesn't mean "test" anymore, although a few usages from previous centuries survive, such as military "proving grounds." So yes, it's very interesting that an old phrase that once meant 'a circumstance that challenges or makes one doubt a rule', gave birth to the modern phrase that means pretty much the opposite: "makes one more confident of the rule, in the end, after all." But the latter phrase exists, the former is part of history. Language changes constantly, and meanings often flip from one century to another. The previous meaning of "prove" doesn't obviate the modern usage inside or outside of the phrase in question or turn the clock back. That particular horse escaped the barn, long, long ago along with tens of thousands of other changes in the last few centuries. "Probable" existed before probability theory did, and it didn't refer to odds or math; it just meant "respectable." I could follow your own suit, I suppose, and compliment you by calling your comment "smart", since that word used to mean "painful" in olde english and you prefer the old ways. But I won't. (I'll just say your comment was interesting, and not quite the full story.) I roll with the common currency: language as it is. Print greatly slowed these sorts of changes, and the internet will slow them even more, of course, as the decades and centuries roll on.
  - MereInterest 9y ago
    Most idioms I am fine with shifting, or being nonsensical when broken by time. I couldn't care less if people use "I could care less", as there is no mistaken meaning. My problem with the current use of "exception proves the rule" is that it is factually untrue. Not only that, but unlike other factually untrue phrases such as "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.", its current meaning promotes bad science. Exceptions are evidence against the rule, unless there is reason to discount the exceptions. In general, I try to correct it in order to give the benefit of the doubt. Either somebody is misusing a phrase, which is a charitable interpretation, or somebody has a fundamentally flawed idea of how evidence works, which is rather uncharitable.

jjeaff 9y ago

But it is worthy of note that right now, the top 6 largest companies (by market cap) in the US are or were helmed by their founders well into their fortune 500 status with many thousands of employees.

freehunter 9y ago
It's also worthy of note that these companies are extreme statistical outliers. Not every company is fortunate enough to have someone like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates leading them.
ck425 9y ago
It's also worth noting that all these companies have experienced executive leaders who came on during the transition from 100 to 1000 people. They succeeded with a massive amount of support from experienced top executives. This seems to be the optimal approach, hire in top execs as COO or CEO (then later chairmen or other top advicer) while keeping the founders in the leadership team.

MereInterest 9y ago

That phrase is widely misused. The intended usage is where a rule is implied by the explicit stating of an exception. For example, a sign labeled "No Parking 9AM - 7PM" states an exception, and implies that parking is allowed outside of the time. The stating of the exception proves the existence of the more general rule. In this case, the appropriate term would be "survivorship bias". Those who survive are noticed and used to generalize to the group, even if their survival is atypical of the group as a whole.

freehunter 9y ago
According to Wikipedia, there are multiple ways to use the phrase. The way I used it is listed under "loose rhetorical sense".
Nomentatus 9y ago
The word "prove" has largely changed its meaning, it doesn't mean "test" anymore, although a few usages from previous centuries survive, such as military "proving grounds." So yes, it's very interesting that an old phrase that once meant 'a circumstance that challenges or makes one doubt a rule', gave birth to the modern phrase that means pretty much the opposite: "makes one more confident of the rule, in the end, after all." But the latter phrase exists, the former is part of history. Language changes constantly, and meanings often flip from one century to another. The previous meaning of "prove" doesn't obviate the modern usage inside or outside of the phrase in question or turn the clock back. That particular horse escaped the barn, long, long ago along with tens of thousands of other changes in the last few centuries. "Probable" existed before probability theory did, and it didn't refer to odds or math; it just meant "respectable." I could follow your own suit, I suppose, and compliment you by calling your comment "smart", since that word used to mean "painful" in olde english and you prefer the old ways. But I won't. (I'll just say your comment was interesting, and not quite the full story.) I roll with the common currency: language as it is. Print greatly slowed these sorts of changes, and the internet will slow them even more, of course, as the decades and centuries roll on.
- MereInterest 9y ago
  Most idioms I am fine with shifting, or being nonsensical when broken by time. I couldn't care less if people use "I could care less", as there is no mistaken meaning. My problem with the current use of "exception proves the rule" is that it is factually untrue. Not only that, but unlike other factually untrue phrases such as "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.", its current meaning promotes bad science. Exceptions are evidence against the rule, unless there is reason to discount the exceptions. In general, I try to correct it in order to give the benefit of the doubt. Either somebody is misusing a phrase, which is a charitable interpretation, or somebody has a fundamentally flawed idea of how evidence works, which is rather uncharitable.