3 ms·

When so many generally-smart people make the same mistake, I always wonder what the incentives are that put them there. Was it fear of being left out of the fr

When so many generally-smart people make the same mistake, I always wonder what the incentives are that put them there. Was it fear of being left out of the free-money-on-the-table if they didn't keep telling everyone growth would last forever, thus justifying investing more money in them to capitalize on that growth? I always have to keep in mind that public statements companies make are at least equal parts fire-for-effect as declaration of truth; they are bound by law to make some true statements, but they also pepper statements heavily with words chosen to illicit the desired behavior in investors (current and potential) and competitors.

notpachet 4y ago
> When so many generally-smart people make the same mistake, I always wonder what the incentives are that put them there. "Money, it's a hit; Ah, don't give me that do-goody-good bullshit; I'm in the high-fidelity first class travelling set; And I think I need a Learjet" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpbbuaIA3Ds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpbbuaIA3Ds
pm90 4y ago
It might make more sense to think of these folks, not as smart people operating independently, but as part of a larger social ecosystem. They claim to be purely data driven, but generally that's not really true. A lot of decision making comes down to social conditioning and peer pressure. In particular, I would say its not malicious, but just how society works. If you see your peers (other CEO's), the people you respect and report to (VC, investors) all saying similar things and nudging you to go in a specific direction, its easier to think you're on the right direction, easier to ignore signals that might point to the fact that your decision making is flawed. The unfortunate truth is that they have the "excuse" that everyone around them was caught by surprise, so its "not their fault" (i.e. they're still a good leader) and investors will buy it. The people that lose out are the affected employees; they just need to be nice and polite, apologize profusely and move on, while its the employees that lose the most.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Would be interesting if there was a way for corporate boards to be more accountable for their mistakes in situations like the current tech layoffs. It is somewhat understandable if in a lot of these cases the CEOs are just cat’s paws of the will of the boards. I suppose activist investors who pushed for aggressive growth strategies because of the FOMO environment will be losing a lot of money, but that's little comfort to the people losing their jobs.
  - pm90 4y ago
    > I suppose activist investors who pushed for aggressive growth strategies because of the FOMO environment will be losing a lot of money, but that's little comfort to the people losing their jobs. Right, and I see little in the news about investors taking responsibility for misreading the market and losing value, all the fault appears to rest with the CEO's for hiring aggressively and for employees not being productive enough. In a certain sense, I think we need more journalists that cover tech, so that we can get deep dives and some real answers. What we currently have is "journalists" whose main source of news is going to events/parties, socializing with the elite and then parroting their perspectives. There is very little "hard" journalism happening here, its more "access" journalism.

notpachet 4y ago

> When so many generally-smart people make the same mistake, I always wonder what the incentives are that put them there. "Money, it's a hit; Ah, don't give me that do-goody-good bullshit; I'm in the high-fidelity first class travelling set; And I think I need a Learjet" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpbbuaIA3Ds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpbbuaIA3Ds

pm90 4y ago

It might make more sense to think of these folks, not as smart people operating independently, but as part of a larger social ecosystem. They claim to be purely data driven, but generally that's not really true. A lot of decision making comes down to social conditioning and peer pressure. In particular, I would say its not malicious, but just how society works. If you see your peers (other CEO's), the people you respect and report to (VC, investors) all saying similar things and nudging you to go in a specific direction, its easier to think you're on the right direction, easier to ignore signals that might point to the fact that your decision making is flawed. The unfortunate truth is that they have the "excuse" that everyone around them was caught by surprise, so its "not their fault" (i.e. they're still a good leader) and investors will buy it. The people that lose out are the affected employees; they just need to be nice and polite, apologize profusely and move on, while its the employees that lose the most.

Apocryphon 4y ago
Would be interesting if there was a way for corporate boards to be more accountable for their mistakes in situations like the current tech layoffs. It is somewhat understandable if in a lot of these cases the CEOs are just cat’s paws of the will of the boards. I suppose activist investors who pushed for aggressive growth strategies because of the FOMO environment will be losing a lot of money, but that's little comfort to the people losing their jobs.
- pm90 4y ago
  > I suppose activist investors who pushed for aggressive growth strategies because of the FOMO environment will be losing a lot of money, but that's little comfort to the people losing their jobs. Right, and I see little in the news about investors taking responsibility for misreading the market and losing value, all the fault appears to rest with the CEO's for hiring aggressively and for employees not being productive enough. In a certain sense, I think we need more journalists that cover tech, so that we can get deep dives and some real answers. What we currently have is "journalists" whose main source of news is going to events/parties, socializing with the elite and then parroting their perspectives. There is very little "hard" journalism happening here, its more "access" journalism.