5 ms·

I think this is the case to most companies when you move onto the 3rd generation of leadership/CEO, or if you are 3 degrees separated from the original vision.

by ProAm 7y ago

I think this is the case to most companies when you move onto the 3rd generation of leadership/CEO, or if you are 3 degrees separated from the original vision. You see this with most projects/companies etc. Too much dilution in vision, other priorities take center stage of a public company.

CobrastanJorji 7y ago
I think this is Amazon's core strength: the continuity of leadership and vision that comes from having a single CEO who is deeply involved in everything. No product launches at Amazon without Jeff Bezos at least being aware of it. That said, woo boy, has that guy gone weird in the last couple of years. He used to be one of the only sane-seeming billionaires. The quirkiest thing about him used to be "he's investing in space."
- techslave 7y ago
  You’re arguing sonething very different. Amazon acts very unethically (well, business is business, but still) and it’s never been a problem.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  Google's founders used to be quite "deeply involved" in the day-to-day business, and the company didn't suffer for it. Maybe this has something to do with it becoming "unrecognizable" shortly after they checked out altogether.
  - vkou 7y ago
    > the company didn't suffer for it I have one word for you. Social. Social was Larry's project. He very explicitly put Vic in charge of it, and kept Vic in charge from one disaster to another.
    - zozbot234 7y ago
      My guess is that they did this because they saw Facebook as an existential threat of sorts for Google. Maybe you feel that the whole thing was badly managed, but it's hard to say this other than with hindsight. G+ was no Facebook, but it looked like something that could be successful for quite some time.
      - vkou 7y ago
        That Social failed to win is not the problem. You can't win everything. The way that Social changed the company culture was.
- aylmao 7y ago
  > I think this is Amazon's core strength: the continuity of leadership and vision that comes from having a single CEO who is deeply involved in everything. Not only Amazon, it seems to be the case with other big tech companies: - At Apple, this was famously 100% the case under Jobs. Under Tim Cook the company still very much seems cohesive on a single vision, is very, very focused in its products and from the outside it does look like upper-leadership takes credit for and oversees most things. - Facebook still has Zuckerberg, which built the original product. Last I heard he was reorganizing the company so that "the heads of individual products, including WhatsApp, Instagram, and others, would report directly to him" [1]. [1]: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/facebook-chris https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/facebook-chris
  - Skunkleton 7y ago
    I like how Zuckerberg is a "which", and not a "who". Seems fitting.
    - aylmao 7y ago
      Oh, 100% accidental (not a native speaker). A good chuckle though haha.

by ProAm 7y ago

CobrastanJorji 7y ago

I think this is Amazon's core strength: the continuity of leadership and vision that comes from having a single CEO who is deeply involved in everything. No product launches at Amazon without Jeff Bezos at least being aware of it. That said, woo boy, has that guy gone weird in the last couple of years. He used to be one of the only sane-seeming billionaires. The quirkiest thing about him used to be "he's investing in space."

techslave 7y ago
You’re arguing sonething very different. Amazon acts very unethically (well, business is business, but still) and it’s never been a problem.
zozbot234 7y ago
Google's founders used to be quite "deeply involved" in the day-to-day business, and the company didn't suffer for it. Maybe this has something to do with it becoming "unrecognizable" shortly after they checked out altogether.
- vkou 7y ago
  > the company didn't suffer for it I have one word for you. Social. Social was Larry's project. He very explicitly put Vic in charge of it, and kept Vic in charge from one disaster to another.
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    My guess is that they did this because they saw Facebook as an existential threat of sorts for Google. Maybe you feel that the whole thing was badly managed, but it's hard to say this other than with hindsight. G+ was no Facebook, but it looked like something that could be successful for quite some time.
    - vkou 7y ago
      That Social failed to win is not the problem. You can't win everything. The way that Social changed the company culture was.
aylmao 7y ago
> I think this is Amazon's core strength: the continuity of leadership and vision that comes from having a single CEO who is deeply involved in everything. Not only Amazon, it seems to be the case with other big tech companies: - At Apple, this was famously 100% the case under Jobs. Under Tim Cook the company still very much seems cohesive on a single vision, is very, very focused in its products and from the outside it does look like upper-leadership takes credit for and oversees most things. - Facebook still has Zuckerberg, which built the original product. Last I heard he was reorganizing the company so that "the heads of individual products, including WhatsApp, Instagram, and others, would report directly to him" [1]. [1]: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/facebook-chris https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/facebook-chris
- Skunkleton 7y ago
  I like how Zuckerberg is a "which", and not a "who". Seems fitting.
  - aylmao 7y ago
    Oh, 100% accidental (not a native speaker). A good chuckle though haha.