5 ms·

Makes me think of Buffett’s saying that goes something like: “I invest in companies that could be successfully run by monkeys because eventually they will be.”

Makes me think of Buffett’s saying that goes something like: “I invest in companies that could be successfully run by monkeys because eventually they will be.” I don’t know how an organization avoids this fate, but it does seem to eventually come for all enterprises. IBM, Bell Labs, GE; who else should be on that list?

davidb_ 5y ago
> IBM, Bell Labs, GE; who else should be on that list? Intel felt quite a bit like IBM during my time there circa 2010. I wasn't familiar with this quote, but wow was that my experience at large tech orgs. I wish I would have known this about 15 years ago, as perhaps I would have done a better job picking orgs to work at early in my career instead of being so frustrated.
dopylitty 5y ago
From its history since the MD merger you could argue Boeing should be on this list. It's the inevitable result of prioritizing profit rather than prioritizing the creation of quality products that the people working at a company can be proud of. That's why you see companies fall apart when the founders leave. They're replaced by people who prioritize profit for the company and wealth for themselves rather than product quality so the company ends up rudderless.
- rl3 5y ago
  >That's why you see companies fall apart when the founders leave. They're replaced by people who prioritize profit for the company and wealth for themselves rather than product quality so the company ends up rudderless. Which ironically fucks over profit anyways, just about every time. I think it's more of a personal greed thing combined with incompetence, on top of perverse incentives that come with being a publicly traded company. The quarterly profit model all but ensures a societal-scale myopia in the end.
- Aloha 5y ago
  Unless the founder of the company builds a culture that is designed to survive without them at the center, the company will eventually fail without them there. One of my former employers was like this - the founder was a brilliant engineer, who installed good financial controls, and was himself decent at the business end. But, he was a micromanger, and he never sought to create replacements for himself inside the company, he tended to penalize people who stepped out of line too. So once he was out of the picture (he sold out), we didnt really have the right person to run the company, or the right culture to just install a generic manager with industry expertise, it instead was a company that had been formed for the founders personal needs. That company was purchased by a multinational, and is now being systemically dismantled.
kibwen 5y ago
Google has been on this list for the past decade, as demonstrated by the Google+ fiasco of 2011. Same for Microsoft in the post-Gates era and Apple in the post-Jobs era. As for Facebook, the vapid metaverse hype shows that it has well and truly jumped the shark.
- porknubbins 5y ago
  Apple has done some pretty ugly stuff related to the App store monopoly and fighting the right to repair but having monopolistic tendencies has always been baked in to a company that wants you to run both its hardware and software, and that is not the same thing as being MBAized (ie greed/evil and technical prowess can be orthagonal). Their recent processor success proves they are not another IBM.
- josefrichter 5y ago
  I would argue that Apple is doing fairly well in post-Jobs era, probably much better than anyone expected. Microsoft seems to be making some steps forward here and there, improving its reputation among developers and end users (although they still do their fair share of missteps).
  - TedShiller 5y ago
    Microsoft will always be a pathetic company
amelius 5y ago
The Peter principle.
bjarneh 5y ago
Boeing
TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
Kodak - can you believe they used to be a defense contractor (cameras or lens for spy satellites, among other things)
- rossmohax 5y ago
  AFAIK Kodak strength was film, not cameras or lenses.
  - mistrial9 5y ago
    please define "strength" (?)
    - amelius 5y ago
      expertise
  - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
    They also made cameras. Ever hear of the wildly popular Brownie? Anyway their film expertise does not take away their involvement in cameras for spy satellites in the 1960s.

davidb_ 5y ago

> IBM, Bell Labs, GE; who else should be on that list? Intel felt quite a bit like IBM during my time there circa 2010. I wasn't familiar with this quote, but wow was that my experience at large tech orgs. I wish I would have known this about 15 years ago, as perhaps I would have done a better job picking orgs to work at early in my career instead of being so frustrated.

dopylitty 5y ago

From its history since the MD merger you could argue Boeing should be on this list. It's the inevitable result of prioritizing profit rather than prioritizing the creation of quality products that the people working at a company can be proud of. That's why you see companies fall apart when the founders leave. They're replaced by people who prioritize profit for the company and wealth for themselves rather than product quality so the company ends up rudderless.

rl3 5y ago
>That's why you see companies fall apart when the founders leave. They're replaced by people who prioritize profit for the company and wealth for themselves rather than product quality so the company ends up rudderless. Which ironically fucks over profit anyways, just about every time. I think it's more of a personal greed thing combined with incompetence, on top of perverse incentives that come with being a publicly traded company. The quarterly profit model all but ensures a societal-scale myopia in the end.
Aloha 5y ago
Unless the founder of the company builds a culture that is designed to survive without them at the center, the company will eventually fail without them there. One of my former employers was like this - the founder was a brilliant engineer, who installed good financial controls, and was himself decent at the business end. But, he was a micromanger, and he never sought to create replacements for himself inside the company, he tended to penalize people who stepped out of line too. So once he was out of the picture (he sold out), we didnt really have the right person to run the company, or the right culture to just install a generic manager with industry expertise, it instead was a company that had been formed for the founders personal needs. That company was purchased by a multinational, and is now being systemically dismantled.

kibwen 5y ago

Google has been on this list for the past decade, as demonstrated by the Google+ fiasco of 2011. Same for Microsoft in the post-Gates era and Apple in the post-Jobs era. As for Facebook, the vapid metaverse hype shows that it has well and truly jumped the shark.

porknubbins 5y ago
Apple has done some pretty ugly stuff related to the App store monopoly and fighting the right to repair but having monopolistic tendencies has always been baked in to a company that wants you to run both its hardware and software, and that is not the same thing as being MBAized (ie greed/evil and technical prowess can be orthagonal). Their recent processor success proves they are not another IBM.
josefrichter 5y ago
I would argue that Apple is doing fairly well in post-Jobs era, probably much better than anyone expected. Microsoft seems to be making some steps forward here and there, improving its reputation among developers and end users (although they still do their fair share of missteps).
- TedShiller 5y ago
  Microsoft will always be a pathetic company

amelius 5y ago

The Peter principle.

bjarneh 5y ago

Boeing

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago

Kodak - can you believe they used to be a defense contractor (cameras or lens for spy satellites, among other things)

rossmohax 5y ago
AFAIK Kodak strength was film, not cameras or lenses.
- mistrial9 5y ago
  please define "strength" (?)
  - amelius 5y ago
    expertise
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  They also made cameras. Ever hear of the wildly popular Brownie? Anyway their film expertise does not take away their involvement in cameras for spy satellites in the 1960s.