4 ms·
> plausible that techbrocracy is better than a more circumspect style for companies like this. Given that the company was founded and formed under Zhu's leader
by marcus_holmes 6y ago
> plausible that techbrocracy is better than a more circumspect style for companies like this.
Given that the company was founded and formed under Zhu's leadership, it was probably exactly suited to his leadership style[0].
The new factor appears to be the VC's. It's not so common now, but VC's used to have a reputation for replacing founders with "experienced" CEOs - y'know: their mates from the golf club who could be counted on to play ball nicely. This was especially common if the founder was unconventional in any way.
[0] TFA doesn't mention any internal management problems, so I'm assuming all was well and there wasn't any dissatisfaction with the leadership style. That assumption could be wrong.
- whimsicalism 6y ago> y'know: their mates from the golf club who could be counted on to play ball nicely. This was especially common if the founder was unconventional in any way. And it's a pretty obvious conclusion from: 1. the fact that GPs have to put up $10s of millions into the fund to get the job 2. most (>50%) wealth held by affluent people (like the people who become GPs) is inherited from their parents. These are people who grew up in affluent social circles and want people like them managing the companies they invest in.