3 ms·

That's been my experience moving from individual contributor to c suite exec. As an individual contributor, I was free to just do what I thought was best for th

That's been my experience moving from individual contributor to c suite exec. As an individual contributor, I was free to just do what I thought was best for the company and contribute to any project that I thought I could add the most value. As a c-suite exec, I spend most of my time in meetings that lead to very little change and I look on with a bit of envy on ICs who get to improve things without asking for permission first.

civilized 4y ago
You're at the top. Why can't you choose to do things differently? Who or what else are you waiting on?
- SkyPuncher 4y ago
  As you go up the ladder, your work inherently involves more impact _across_ the organization. Your area of influence is so large that you must make sure the changes you make support all parts of the company - not just your org. The IC at the bottom is likely limited to a specific project or feature. They have a lot of space to roam in that box, but they inevitably have a small box.
- randomdata 4y ago
  If you are at the top, you are waiting on everyone else. Being humans with their own thoughts and feelings they need to be won over if you want them to stay aligned with you. What else can be done differently other than giving up and doing everything yourself? But once you start doing everything yourself you are no longer at the top. You are at the very bottom.
- WJW 4y ago
  Even a CEO has tons of constraints, they don't have infinite power. Just some examples: - the labor market dictates how many people you can hire. - Speaking of budgets: they are not unlimited; - Often what you can build depends on the levels of tech and organizational debt you have built up. A small startup simply doesn't have the organizational set-up and know-how to become a hospital and vice versa. This limits how far you can take your plans. - Vested interests in your employee pool; if the company is (say) a dedicated Ruby on Rails shop and you decree a big rewrite in Rust then you can expect a large part of your employees to go looking elsewhere. This limits what you can build. - Prior commitments; if there is a long-running project going on then you need to keep that staffed to maintain internal knowledge or else it will dissipate. It's not uncommon that 90% of employees is already assigned to something and you can't start new things without dropping old things. - etc etc etc It is extremely common for an executive to come in and start off with bold plans to improve things, then slowly discover why things are the way they are.
  - civilized 4y ago
    > It is extremely common for an executive to come in and start off with bold plans to improve things, then slowly discover why things are the way they are. The same is true of a new IC coming into a new code base. The things you mention are not great excuses for not being able to make any change. If those things overwhelm an exec, that exec should probably step aside and let someone else try.

civilized 4y ago

You're at the top. Why can't you choose to do things differently? Who or what else are you waiting on?

SkyPuncher 4y ago
As you go up the ladder, your work inherently involves more impact _across_ the organization. Your area of influence is so large that you must make sure the changes you make support all parts of the company - not just your org. The IC at the bottom is likely limited to a specific project or feature. They have a lot of space to roam in that box, but they inevitably have a small box.
randomdata 4y ago
If you are at the top, you are waiting on everyone else. Being humans with their own thoughts and feelings they need to be won over if you want them to stay aligned with you. What else can be done differently other than giving up and doing everything yourself? But once you start doing everything yourself you are no longer at the top. You are at the very bottom.
WJW 4y ago
Even a CEO has tons of constraints, they don't have infinite power. Just some examples: - the labor market dictates how many people you can hire. - Speaking of budgets: they are not unlimited; - Often what you can build depends on the levels of tech and organizational debt you have built up. A small startup simply doesn't have the organizational set-up and know-how to become a hospital and vice versa. This limits how far you can take your plans. - Vested interests in your employee pool; if the company is (say) a dedicated Ruby on Rails shop and you decree a big rewrite in Rust then you can expect a large part of your employees to go looking elsewhere. This limits what you can build. - Prior commitments; if there is a long-running project going on then you need to keep that staffed to maintain internal knowledge or else it will dissipate. It's not uncommon that 90% of employees is already assigned to something and you can't start new things without dropping old things. - etc etc etc It is extremely common for an executive to come in and start off with bold plans to improve things, then slowly discover why things are the way they are.
- civilized 4y ago
  > It is extremely common for an executive to come in and start off with bold plans to improve things, then slowly discover why things are the way they are. The same is true of a new IC coming into a new code base. The things you mention are not great excuses for not being able to make any change. If those things overwhelm an exec, that exec should probably step aside and let someone else try.