3 ms·

This point of view isn't supported by org charts at large companies. If you were to compute the correlation between age of org and time in org of the business u

This point of view isn't supported by org charts at large companies. If you were to compute the correlation between age of org and time in org of the business unit leader, you will get a very high number. It's high because people grow into the capabilities you are describing, just like someone grows into a Java developer. The opportunities to learn those skills are rare, and generally are never just handed out. Again this comes from experience at two FAANGs. Most high level business leaders started 20 years ago. You can present whatever type of logic you want, the data doesnt support the logic.

lazide 4y ago
You’re reinforcing my point? At every step, it’s a filtering function. Of the hundreds who were there at the beginning, who has kept up and continued to grow, without screwing it up? Who learned the new skills, who figured out the limiting factors and discarded them, vs who didn’t? Personally, my ratio at the time I left for personal reasons was around 1 in 600ish, depending on how you counted. I’ve known others that were higher, and a few that were lower. It’s always less risky for the company to keep someone who continues to work, rather than roll the dice on an unknown quantity, of course, but the filtering mechanism is still harsh, and most don’t pass it. Anyone who isn’t effective is a drag on progress, and unless someone has too large of an ownership stake to push out, it’s rare those with the larger stakes will tolerate expensive old friends for long.