2 ms·

Sorry, I believe you switched the directionality of my analogy because I agree with you. Corp execs should run like startups. Trusting, fast moving units effec

Sorry, I believe you switched the directionality of my analogy because I agree with you. Corp execs should run like startups. Trusting, fast moving units effective in its execution towards a common goal. When a corp exec replaces a whole layer or unit with their own guys it's because they need to move like a startup does. Or it could just be cronyism - that's always possible too, but I think we're trying to find a positive/useful reason in this thread.

alistairSH 6y ago
Or it could just be cronyism It's this. In my experience (line manager), when a new C-level is hired, within two years, they've usually replaced 50% of the VP/directors that sit below them in the org. That's far too much churn for it to be because those particular VP/directors are brilliant - by extension, that would mean the outgoing VP/directors were not - except many of them went to work for the recently departed C-level! They can't all be brilliant and they can't all be useless, so we're largely left with cronyism.
- irjustin 6y ago
  To me, the difference between cronyism vs trusted VPs is simply whether they were successful or not in the long run. And you're right, you lose _lots_ of brilliant talent when the helm changes hands. I think what's helpful is to imagine you are that exec going in to a new position of a large org, 26,000 people, say Chief Marketing Officer. A few know you, but there are a lot of new faces who now have to call you boss and answer to your directions whether they agree or not. You now have to convince each major head that what you're doing is the right thing. How long does it take to build that level of trust? Typically years and a few large projects won. Some of those heads have been around for a long time and don't like the way you do things. If you want to be effective, you don't have much time to figure out who is toxic, who is simply lazy, who resists your leadership. Some resist openly, but most behind closed doors by dragging things, sowing discord. etc etc. You clearly can't keep everyone - it doesn't do any good. At a certain level trust and speed make up for brilliance. Just like hard work/grit can close a gap of genius. Again, I agree with you - lots of good guys are lost. So many times at the detriment of the company, but that means the outgoing leader picked the wrong successor. Separately I enjoy this topic. Its our human condition laid bare.
  - codeisawesome 6y ago
    What are some books that talk about this at length?
    - specialist 6y ago
      Histories of regimes and empires. The Prince and 48 Laws of Power try to serve as TLDRs.

alistairSH 6y ago

Or it could just be cronyism It's this. In my experience (line manager), when a new C-level is hired, within two years, they've usually replaced 50% of the VP/directors that sit below them in the org. That's far too much churn for it to be because those particular VP/directors are brilliant - by extension, that would mean the outgoing VP/directors were not - except many of them went to work for the recently departed C-level! They can't all be brilliant and they can't all be useless, so we're largely left with cronyism.

irjustin 6y ago
To me, the difference between cronyism vs trusted VPs is simply whether they were successful or not in the long run. And you're right, you lose _lots_ of brilliant talent when the helm changes hands. I think what's helpful is to imagine you are that exec going in to a new position of a large org, 26,000 people, say Chief Marketing Officer. A few know you, but there are a lot of new faces who now have to call you boss and answer to your directions whether they agree or not. You now have to convince each major head that what you're doing is the right thing. How long does it take to build that level of trust? Typically years and a few large projects won. Some of those heads have been around for a long time and don't like the way you do things. If you want to be effective, you don't have much time to figure out who is toxic, who is simply lazy, who resists your leadership. Some resist openly, but most behind closed doors by dragging things, sowing discord. etc etc. You clearly can't keep everyone - it doesn't do any good. At a certain level trust and speed make up for brilliance. Just like hard work/grit can close a gap of genius. Again, I agree with you - lots of good guys are lost. So many times at the detriment of the company, but that means the outgoing leader picked the wrong successor. Separately I enjoy this topic. Its our human condition laid bare.
- codeisawesome 6y ago
  What are some books that talk about this at length?
  - specialist 6y ago
    Histories of regimes and empires. The Prince and 48 Laws of Power try to serve as TLDRs.