17 ms·

For some of the best, making and guiding companies is their art and obsession. That's the nice take on it. For others (or from a different perspective) for so

For some of the best, making and guiding companies is their art and obsession. That's the nice take on it. For others (or from a different perspective) for some making money itself is a bit of an addiction that swallows everything else. I know a great guy -- very kind, very smart. But he doesn't really know how to have fun if he's not making money. That's his game and he's great at it. But I feel like he's missing out on a lot out of life. And he understands that on an intellectual level. But he can't imagine doing anything else. I am personally very conflicted when it comes to people who almost insanely dedicate themselves to one pursuit. On one hand I feel sorry for them because I feel like they miss out on a lot. On the other hand, I'm very glad they exist. They do things no one else can or will do and our world is better off for it.

coldtea 7y ago
>For some of the best, making and guiding companies is their art and obsession. Again, why? If it wasn't "making and guiding companies", but e.g. someone was obsessed with making spaghetti paintings, and working for it the same hours, would we consider them balanced?
- bradstewart 7y ago
  No. But that's ok. Why does everyone have to be balanced?
- clavalle 7y ago
  I mean, why are there people who dedicate themselves and a huge chunk of their time on this Earth to a sports team? Or finding the best food? Or travel to the prettiest most interesting places? Or going to the best parties? There are plenty of those. That's even more of a mystery to me. At least the person building a company is creating something and doing something for others. Balance has a cost, too. I consider myself pretty balanced. And I'm happy being balanced. Mostly. But I understand that I will never be truly great at anything. As long as I insist on balance, I will only ever be pretty good. Luckily enough, pretty good has been good enough. But still, I wonder what it would be like to pick one horse and ride it.
- thrav 7y ago
  They probably believe they are working for the betterment of the lives of the thousands of people in their organization. There are at least 100 people in that company they know personally and care about, and they're all rolling up to and depending upon them. Some of them have kids with medical issues. Some of them have dedicated the same number of years directly supporting him. If that person feels like those people would all be worse off without them, if he felt Oracle would tank much harder than it has if he stepped away, I could see that weighing on a good person.
- biztos 7y ago
  > would we consider them balanced? No, but I never heard anyone say "again, why" about Van Gogh. The why is self-evident in retrospect. I wouldn't put my art before everything else in life, and I'm not saying Mark Hurd did, but I get that some people do and once in a while that results in an incredible gift to humanity. Most of the time it doesn't, but I don't see how you get a Van Gogh without a lot of people giving an unhealthy amount of themselves to potentially boring, mediocre shit.
  - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
    Van Gogh was utterly miserable though. I don't think he'd consider his life a success. To frame it with someone I know much better, what about Nikola Tesla? Profoundly accomplished, objectively made enormous contributions to engineering that made huge improvements to the quality of life for a large chunk of humanity. He was utterly obsessed with the pursuit of knowledge and nothing else. On his death bed he regretted his work ethic and wished only to have ever known the touch of a woman. We may be benefiting from their obsessions, but they aren't.
    - skunkpocalypse 7y ago
      > Van Gogh was utterly miserable though. Geniuses usually are. That does not in any way diminish their contribution.
    - RJIb8RBYxzAMX9u 7y ago
      OTOH, Newton never married either, and apocryphally was proud that he's a virgin. Even a genius may not be immune to FOMO.
    - biztos 7y ago
      Precisely! If we eliminate all misery we probably lose art in the deal. And then what? Of course it’s possible to make smaller strides while living a more or less healthy life but I think for some (Tesla, Erdős) it just tips. But then again Erdős was maybe happy with his life... Sticking with the scientists for a moment, maybe Feinman is exemplary. But are a bunch of Feinmanns enough?
- nearst 7y ago
  As others have said, some people like to spend 20-30 hours/week training for an Ironmmn, others spend much more than that in front of the TV watching Netflix. How's that different from working 80 hours/week IF you enjoy it? Just don't force others to do the same.
tyre 7y ago
> the best The best at what? I think that’s the real existential question. The best at making money? Okay. Maybe I’m not as interested in having “created significant shareholder value” on my gravestone.
- flatline 7y ago
  There's a human factor to all of this. An executive's day is not (typically) spent coding, or looking at spreadsheets, or analyzing forecasts. Those may be parts of an executive's job, but the bread and butter is working with people. Coordinating other's efforts - whether to maximize shareholder value, build a particle accelerator, make a movie, market useless crap to consumers, or whatever - involves a lot of dealing with people, successfully navigating complex interpersonal relationships, making compromises, etc. Some people really thrive on this and derive joy from the work itself. I personally find it exhausting, as I suspect do a large number of the people who frequent HN.
- DougRoss 7y ago
  Agree with Flatline. Sometimes a person's job is their passion. We all know software developers who love to code, nights, weekends, for work... The CEO job is the ultimate programming job. You are orchestrating people, money, processes, sales, product development, IT and more... Probably why CEOs are paid multiples of a typical worker. Very few can handle the job.
- CamperBob2 7y ago
  Do you know any hardcore gamers? Ask them if they want "Led successful assault against Foozle the Evil Wizard" on their gravestone. Maybe they do, and that's OK. In other words, don't project your own idea of a fulfilled life onto other people. "Creating shareholder value" might just be the most important thing in the world to someone like Hurd. It's not your place to say he's wrong or misguided, as long as he doesn't do anything illegal to make it happen.

coldtea 7y ago

>For some of the best, making and guiding companies is their art and obsession. Again, why? If it wasn't "making and guiding companies", but e.g. someone was obsessed with making spaghetti paintings, and working for it the same hours, would we consider them balanced?

bradstewart 7y ago
No. But that's ok. Why does everyone have to be balanced?
clavalle 7y ago
I mean, why are there people who dedicate themselves and a huge chunk of their time on this Earth to a sports team? Or finding the best food? Or travel to the prettiest most interesting places? Or going to the best parties? There are plenty of those. That's even more of a mystery to me. At least the person building a company is creating something and doing something for others. Balance has a cost, too. I consider myself pretty balanced. And I'm happy being balanced. Mostly. But I understand that I will never be truly great at anything. As long as I insist on balance, I will only ever be pretty good. Luckily enough, pretty good has been good enough. But still, I wonder what it would be like to pick one horse and ride it.
thrav 7y ago
They probably believe they are working for the betterment of the lives of the thousands of people in their organization. There are at least 100 people in that company they know personally and care about, and they're all rolling up to and depending upon them. Some of them have kids with medical issues. Some of them have dedicated the same number of years directly supporting him. If that person feels like those people would all be worse off without them, if he felt Oracle would tank much harder than it has if he stepped away, I could see that weighing on a good person.
biztos 7y ago
> would we consider them balanced? No, but I never heard anyone say "again, why" about Van Gogh. The why is self-evident in retrospect. I wouldn't put my art before everything else in life, and I'm not saying Mark Hurd did, but I get that some people do and once in a while that results in an incredible gift to humanity. Most of the time it doesn't, but I don't see how you get a Van Gogh without a lot of people giving an unhealthy amount of themselves to potentially boring, mediocre shit.
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago
  Van Gogh was utterly miserable though. I don't think he'd consider his life a success. To frame it with someone I know much better, what about Nikola Tesla? Profoundly accomplished, objectively made enormous contributions to engineering that made huge improvements to the quality of life for a large chunk of humanity. He was utterly obsessed with the pursuit of knowledge and nothing else. On his death bed he regretted his work ethic and wished only to have ever known the touch of a woman. We may be benefiting from their obsessions, but they aren't.
  - skunkpocalypse 7y ago
    > Van Gogh was utterly miserable though. Geniuses usually are. That does not in any way diminish their contribution.
  - RJIb8RBYxzAMX9u 7y ago
    OTOH, Newton never married either, and apocryphally was proud that he's a virgin. Even a genius may not be immune to FOMO.
  - biztos 7y ago
    Precisely! If we eliminate all misery we probably lose art in the deal. And then what? Of course it’s possible to make smaller strides while living a more or less healthy life but I think for some (Tesla, Erdős) it just tips. But then again Erdős was maybe happy with his life... Sticking with the scientists for a moment, maybe Feinman is exemplary. But are a bunch of Feinmanns enough?
nearst 7y ago
As others have said, some people like to spend 20-30 hours/week training for an Ironmmn, others spend much more than that in front of the TV watching Netflix. How's that different from working 80 hours/week IF you enjoy it? Just don't force others to do the same.

tyre 7y ago

> the best The best at what? I think that’s the real existential question. The best at making money? Okay. Maybe I’m not as interested in having “created significant shareholder value” on my gravestone.

flatline 7y ago
There's a human factor to all of this. An executive's day is not (typically) spent coding, or looking at spreadsheets, or analyzing forecasts. Those may be parts of an executive's job, but the bread and butter is working with people. Coordinating other's efforts - whether to maximize shareholder value, build a particle accelerator, make a movie, market useless crap to consumers, or whatever - involves a lot of dealing with people, successfully navigating complex interpersonal relationships, making compromises, etc. Some people really thrive on this and derive joy from the work itself. I personally find it exhausting, as I suspect do a large number of the people who frequent HN.
DougRoss 7y ago
Agree with Flatline. Sometimes a person's job is their passion. We all know software developers who love to code, nights, weekends, for work... The CEO job is the ultimate programming job. You are orchestrating people, money, processes, sales, product development, IT and more... Probably why CEOs are paid multiples of a typical worker. Very few can handle the job.
CamperBob2 7y ago
Do you know any hardcore gamers? Ask them if they want "Led successful assault against Foozle the Evil Wizard" on their gravestone. Maybe they do, and that's OK. In other words, don't project your own idea of a fulfilled life onto other people. "Creating shareholder value" might just be the most important thing in the world to someone like Hurd. It's not your place to say he's wrong or misguided, as long as he doesn't do anything illegal to make it happen.