5 ms·

> An executive who hangs on to their paycheck, benefits, and prestigious position while using their time to build their own company on the side is not good you

> An executive who hangs on to their paycheck, benefits, and prestigious position while using their time to build their own company on the side is not good you have to be specific, whose time are you referring to? It matters. Are you assuming the executive is using company time to work on his side gig? If so, that's quite the claim. Or are you suggesting that it's not good that he's thinking about his side-gig in the shower instead of using those brain cycles towards his current employer? If that's the case then I think you're out of touch on the duty he has towards his employer.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dasil003 5y ago
Things are different for executives at large companies making 7+ figures. It's not about punching a clock and clearly delineated time at that point, it's about effectiveness. If you only need 20 hours a week to keep things running smoothly that's fine, but you also need to be available for a crisis 24/7. It's also a reasonable expectation that 100% of your "work energy" go to the company. Obviously if you are perceived as good enough you can call your own shot (eg. Jack Dorsey), but this is the exception not the rule. That said, personal time for hobbies, even if "business-like" on some dimensions (eg. building an app, selling stuff on Etsy, etc) are probably fine as long as it is recharging your batteries and does not have any real or perceived conflict of interest with your primary company.
- prirun 5y ago
  The whole idea that companies "own" you, no matter what they pay you to work for them, needs to go. If you own the company and want to dedicate your entire life to it, that's one thing. When you only work for a company, even if you are getting stock, the company should not expect you to dedicate your life to it in the same way as the people who actually own the company and get to make the decision about how your stock options work (for example). Even if everyday clerical kinds of jobs, companies have gotten the idea that workers are beholden to them and often have soul-crushing policies and expectations. I'm glad workers are finally saying "Enough!", giving them the finger, and finder better jobs rather than putting up with companies having unreasonable demands on their workforce.
- thrill 5y ago
  'It's also a reasonable expectation that 100% of your "work energy" go to the company.' Yeah ... no, not even.
  - dasil003 5y ago
    That attitude is fair, but it disqualifies you from being the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.
    - true_religion 5y ago
      Sure, but luckily there are only 500 positions like that available so you can just avoid them all and take one of the 100,000+ executive positions that are below the CEO level. This started with talking about mid level managers. I’m not sure how it got upgraded to Fortune 500 CEO ( we can’t all be Bezos you know).
      - drewcoo 5y ago
        I think Bezos checked out already, too.
opportune 5y ago
An implicit assumption for an executive is that you actually work beyond your 40hr because your 9-5 is going to be jammed full with meetings, so you need extra time to go through all the approvals, planning, and random stuff that comes up. They are also supposed to be leaders and exemplars for the rest of the company. It would be extremely demotivating for me as an employee to see an executive having one or more side hustles, if they didn’t didn’t also explicitly set the tone in the company or their organization that they encouraged employees to also do this, or if there were ever any kind of overtime/crunch/extra work. For example I think I’d be quite frustrated being a senior exec at twitter seeing the CEO running another company, being on multiple boards, doing advising, etc (since in that case Dorsey probably wasn’t even putting in 30hr a week). Even as a junior employee, it sets a bad tone that the company is in coast mode, the CEO doesn’t really care because he’s working on the new shiny, etc.
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  What about Musk? He owns multiple companies successful companies and that hasn't caused many people to feel that he isn't to his job. If anything that's brought much positive acclaim and interest from the public.
  - opportune 5y ago
    Can’t particularly say I’d want him as my boss given his propensity to make grandiose promises and fire underlings/middle management aggressively. And no, I wouldn’t want to be putting in >60hr while my boss worked on other businesses or side projects

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dasil003 5y ago

Things are different for executives at large companies making 7+ figures. It's not about punching a clock and clearly delineated time at that point, it's about effectiveness. If you only need 20 hours a week to keep things running smoothly that's fine, but you also need to be available for a crisis 24/7. It's also a reasonable expectation that 100% of your "work energy" go to the company. Obviously if you are perceived as good enough you can call your own shot (eg. Jack Dorsey), but this is the exception not the rule. That said, personal time for hobbies, even if "business-like" on some dimensions (eg. building an app, selling stuff on Etsy, etc) are probably fine as long as it is recharging your batteries and does not have any real or perceived conflict of interest with your primary company.

prirun 5y ago
The whole idea that companies "own" you, no matter what they pay you to work for them, needs to go. If you own the company and want to dedicate your entire life to it, that's one thing. When you only work for a company, even if you are getting stock, the company should not expect you to dedicate your life to it in the same way as the people who actually own the company and get to make the decision about how your stock options work (for example). Even if everyday clerical kinds of jobs, companies have gotten the idea that workers are beholden to them and often have soul-crushing policies and expectations. I'm glad workers are finally saying "Enough!", giving them the finger, and finder better jobs rather than putting up with companies having unreasonable demands on their workforce.
thrill 5y ago
'It's also a reasonable expectation that 100% of your "work energy" go to the company.' Yeah ... no, not even.
- dasil003 5y ago
  That attitude is fair, but it disqualifies you from being the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.
  - true_religion 5y ago
    Sure, but luckily there are only 500 positions like that available so you can just avoid them all and take one of the 100,000+ executive positions that are below the CEO level. This started with talking about mid level managers. I’m not sure how it got upgraded to Fortune 500 CEO ( we can’t all be Bezos you know).
    - drewcoo 5y ago
      I think Bezos checked out already, too.

opportune 5y ago

An implicit assumption for an executive is that you actually work beyond your 40hr because your 9-5 is going to be jammed full with meetings, so you need extra time to go through all the approvals, planning, and random stuff that comes up. They are also supposed to be leaders and exemplars for the rest of the company. It would be extremely demotivating for me as an employee to see an executive having one or more side hustles, if they didn’t didn’t also explicitly set the tone in the company or their organization that they encouraged employees to also do this, or if there were ever any kind of overtime/crunch/extra work. For example I think I’d be quite frustrated being a senior exec at twitter seeing the CEO running another company, being on multiple boards, doing advising, etc (since in that case Dorsey probably wasn’t even putting in 30hr a week). Even as a junior employee, it sets a bad tone that the company is in coast mode, the CEO doesn’t really care because he’s working on the new shiny, etc.

Dracophoenix 5y ago
What about Musk? He owns multiple companies successful companies and that hasn't caused many people to feel that he isn't to his job. If anything that's brought much positive acclaim and interest from the public.
- opportune 5y ago
  Can’t particularly say I’d want him as my boss given his propensity to make grandiose promises and fire underlings/middle management aggressively. And no, I wouldn’t want to be putting in >60hr while my boss worked on other businesses or side projects