3 ms·
Any competent hiring committee would see someone that's experienced failure as a good hire, any fool can manage a great product to a bit more success, but under
by helsinkiandrew 3y ago
Any competent hiring committee would see someone that's experienced failure as a good hire, any fool can manage a great product to a bit more success, but understanding why things fail and being able to make tough decisions is priceless.
This is why traders/bankers who have lost fortunes (even fraudulently) usually land on their feet.
For every CEO or professional manager who didn't have "skin in the game" and failed there a probably 100's of incompetent children who drive a family business into the ground and manager owned businesses working at subsistance levels.
- dclowd9901 3y agoYour last point is surely salient. But your first point is not. If I have a choice between a ceo who’s run 5 companies and 4 of them well vs one that’s run 5 companies and 1 of them well, I don’t really want the one who’s “learned a lot.”
- helsinkiandrew 3y ago> If I have a choice between a ceo who’s run 5 companies and 4 of them well vs one that’s run 5 companies and 1 of them well Sure, but the likelyhood is that you'll have candidates that have a few senior positions and been CEO once or twice before. In that case one that's failed building a new company/product is no worse than someone that has been the CEO of an established company for a few years and it hasn't gone bust. EDIT: I didn't mean to say that a failed CEO was better than a successful one - just that being a failed CEO won't bar you from being employed again, for good reason.