5 ms·
In a vacuum, perhaps, but I think there's more to it than that. Another account yesterday mentioned plans to put Kevin Systrom under a different manager that w
by ohazi 8y ago
In a vacuum, perhaps, but I think there's more to it than that.
Another account yesterday mentioned plans to put Kevin Systrom under a different manager that would have given him "less access to Zuckerberg." Earlier accounts described them as friendly, always seen together, etc.
It seems like Facebook is a company where access to the CEO is so tightly controlled that it's basically used as a political weapon.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> access to the CEO is so tightly controlled that it's basically used as a political weapon This is true at almost any organization of scale. Access to top decision makers must be restricted. The people who make decisions about the restrictions, therefore, gain influence through that process. The power can be used properly or improperly. In this case, it appears to have been used properly: there was no further discussion on the matter, and the employee had shown themselves to be out of line with the CEO's strategy.
- macspoofing 8y ago>It seems like Facebook is a company where access to the CEO is so tightly controlled that it's basically used as a political weapon. Is it different at any other Fortune 50 company? At that scale, the companies are basically nations.