3 ms·

Though this argument falls apart with evidence that CEOs of big firms do need to deeply understand their companies domain. It may work to a degree, but doesn’t

Though this argument falls apart with evidence that CEOs of big firms do need to deeply understand their companies domain. It may work to a degree, but doesn’t seem to coincide with the most valuable companies. It’s why when Intel was floundering a few years back they got rid of CEO and brought on a CEO with deep engineering expertise. Tim Cook is a wizard of supply chain, and in many ways that’s a large part of Apples current success, IMHO. The list goes on.

gruez 3y ago
>Tim Cook is a wizard of supply chain, and in many ways that’s a large part of Apples current success, IMHO. The list goes on. Okay but don't many other companies deal with supply chains? I guess software companies don't, but "companies that trade in physical goods" is a pretty big segment, and it stands to reason that having "a wizard of supply chain" would be useful. Doesn't this translate into an argument in favor of "leadership is leadership wherever you go"?
throw0101b 3y ago
> Though this argument falls apart with evidence that CEOs of big firms do need to deeply understand their companies domain. Counter-example: the last few CEOs of Boeing who have completely messed up the company. They came from the Jack Welch of GE school of management, and it turns out that Welch et al were cooking the books. See also Enron and WorldCom.
- elcritch 3y ago
  How is that a counter example? Seems like another example of “professional managers” coming in and screwing up a company. The first Boeing CEOs were from Boeing and were steeped in Boeings engineering culture and valued that expertise. Later CEOs like you mentioned didn’t. Boeing also acquired McDonnell Douglas, and many thought it was great that Boeing got to keep all McDD’s “experienced” managers.
  - throw0101b 3y ago
    > How is that a counter example? Seems like another example of “professional managers” coming in and screwing up a company. The screwing up started at the top by changing metrics and priorities post-McDD. See Flying Blind: * https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/646497/flying-blind-by-peter-robison/ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/646497/flying-blind... And the screwing up was richly rewarded.

gruez 3y ago

>Tim Cook is a wizard of supply chain, and in many ways that’s a large part of Apples current success, IMHO. The list goes on. Okay but don't many other companies deal with supply chains? I guess software companies don't, but "companies that trade in physical goods" is a pretty big segment, and it stands to reason that having "a wizard of supply chain" would be useful. Doesn't this translate into an argument in favor of "leadership is leadership wherever you go"?

throw0101b 3y ago

> Though this argument falls apart with evidence that CEOs of big firms do need to deeply understand their companies domain. Counter-example: the last few CEOs of Boeing who have completely messed up the company. They came from the Jack Welch of GE school of management, and it turns out that Welch et al were cooking the books. See also Enron and WorldCom.

elcritch 3y ago
How is that a counter example? Seems like another example of “professional managers” coming in and screwing up a company. The first Boeing CEOs were from Boeing and were steeped in Boeings engineering culture and valued that expertise. Later CEOs like you mentioned didn’t. Boeing also acquired McDonnell Douglas, and many thought it was great that Boeing got to keep all McDD’s “experienced” managers.
- throw0101b 3y ago
  > How is that a counter example? Seems like another example of “professional managers” coming in and screwing up a company. The screwing up started at the top by changing metrics and priorities post-McDD. See Flying Blind: * https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/646497/flying-blind-by-peter-robison/ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/646497/flying-blind... And the screwing up was richly rewarded.