4 ms·

This is a bit of a tangent, but the linked presentation brings this up. I cannot wrap my mind around leadership of supposed "tech" companies that has little to

by jjeaff 5y ago

This is a bit of a tangent, but the linked presentation brings this up. I cannot wrap my mind around leadership of supposed "tech" companies that has little to no input on the tech of the business. According to the CEO, Foley, he said he has little to no contribution to the tech and goes months without even talking to the CTO. The other crazy part is that he was previously the head of e-commerce at Barnes & Noble. Did he also have no contribution to the technology at B&N? This seems to be a pattern and perhaps the reason so many "legacy" companies are falling behind the tech giants. It seems rather often that I see CIOs or even CTOs and very often CEOs that have no clue about technology. And yet they are trying to preach about how they are doing some huge technology driven makeover to reinvent their company.

smugglerFlynn 5y ago
This preaching is heavily driven by investors, who don’t seem to be interested in “boring” non-tech stuff, so everyone and their dog dress up traditional business with tech buzzwords. Somehow what could have been real hybrid traditional+tech strategy gets thrown with the water during that process, because drafting realistic tech strategy in a field which is totally different from known success stories of FAANG and the likes is very very fucking hard — much harder, in fact, than getting quick investments after putting on an imaginary “tech” facade. This, I think, is the reason we don’t see real demand for tech-savvy C suite - it’s much easier to hire another guy impersonating Steve Jobs or Elon, and get quick investment rewards.
- toss1 5y ago
  >>get quick investment rewards quick, but very flimsy