3 ms·
> now people will talk about improving processes, blameless postmortems, and how the individual is not at fault. That makes me wonder why investors, particular
by Apocryphon 4y ago
> now people will talk about improving processes, blameless postmortems, and how the individual is not at fault.
That makes me wonder why investors, particularly activist shareholders who drive the direction of boards, are never under scrutiny. Maybe their decisions to chase unrealistic growth, which forces the hands of CEOs and lesser executives, should also be reviewed. Maybe they should be somehow penalized or sanctioned for driving companies towards failure. Shouldn't a massive event like mass layoffs trigger a change in corporate boards? Why shouldn't responsibility go all the way to the top, why stop at the CEO level?
- sdz 4y agoThe investors you refer to typically manage money on behalf of their investors and are actually under constant scrutiny. If they run mutual funds, their performance is measured every day, and if they underperform for a number of quarters in a row, their investors will absolutely “fire” them by withdrawing money from their funds.
- Apocryphon 4y agoThen sounds like their incentives are inherently not conducive to the business of running businesses built on reasonable growth, and causes them to fall prey to the groupthink of expecting unrealistic macro environments to continue indefinitely.
- mohamedattahri 4y agoTheir role is not to run businesses. Their role is to allocate capital while weathering the macroeconomic environment to create returns. Sometimes the best way to do that is to invest in a business, other times it’s to buy other assets, and other times cash is king. Lastly, they are only involved because the shareholders of said companies involved them. Going public is not mandatory.