4 ms·

I worked at Cruise (I left about 2.5 years ago) and I have the opposite impression about Kyle. Kyle was a very charismatic leader who was really in the trenches

I worked at Cruise (I left about 2.5 years ago) and I have the opposite impression about Kyle. Kyle was a very charismatic leader who was really in the trenches. Unlike a lot of CEOs he was really visible in the office, he would drop in on meetings if he had breaks in his calendar, he was active on Jira and Slack, etc. Even though I was just a rank-and-file engineer I was in a number of meetings with him and some of the engineers would meet with him often. It was pretty clear that he had his finger on the pulse of the company and understood what was going on in engineering in a pretty deep way. Some of these are qualities that I could see leading to someone thinking he was "aimless" or a "confused mess", but these are also things that engender a lot of respect from employees. For better or worse his presence was very much felt by engineers, and I think everyone thought that he was very technical. I think Kyle's departure is going to hit hard for a lot of the engineers working on onboard software. It's been reported that they are spending something like $250M/quarter so in order to keep the ship afloat they are going to need to raise funding soon. It's hard to think of a worse situation they could be fundraising in, which I assume is going to mean a massive down round, which is going to further dishearten the people working there.

kbenson 3y ago
> Some of these are qualities that I could see leading to someone thinking he was "aimless" or a "confused mess", but these are also things that engender a lot of respect from employees. Respect from employees is a fickle thing. If someone can do all that you describe and still succeed as a CEO then power to them. When it comes time to choose between one or the other, I think most employees would rather an effective boss than one that seemed to understand them. Their opinion on the CEO might change rather quick were they to be laid off because the CEO just can't cut it. It's sort of like the cool parent that's also a friend. If they can do that and effectively parent, they're better at it than me. If it comes down to being a friend to your child or parenting them, one is nice and the other is a responsibility and has major repercussions when done wrong.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
  Isn't keeping your finger on the pulse of the company an important part of the CEO's job though?
  - kbenson 3y ago
    What is "the pulse of the company"? Is having a bunch of meeting with people possibly multiple levels below you keeping a pulse on the business, or is it micromanaging, or focusing on an area you understand because it's easier than spending that time on an area which you understand less? I think aCEO should have people that work under them that can actually perform the duties they were hired for. Spot checking department and employees to make sure what's being reported to the CEO is accurate is probably a very good idea, but if the CEO is spending a bunch of time in meetings with people that they've already hired others to manage, that either shows there's a severe problem in that department that requires the CEO's constant attention, or a lack of trust in the people they hired to run that department to actually do what they were hired for. Neither are signs of what you'd want to see, IMO.
kyawzazaw 3y ago
> he would drop in on meetings if he had breaks in his calendar Is this a positive thing, tho? I am not sure. I am just curious.
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  This was referenced by several at the manager level as their specific complaint. They worried why he was there and not solving higher level issues the company was facing.
encoderer 3y ago
Do they raise money from anybody aside from the gm board?

kbenson 3y ago

> Some of these are qualities that I could see leading to someone thinking he was "aimless" or a "confused mess", but these are also things that engender a lot of respect from employees. Respect from employees is a fickle thing. If someone can do all that you describe and still succeed as a CEO then power to them. When it comes time to choose between one or the other, I think most employees would rather an effective boss than one that seemed to understand them. Their opinion on the CEO might change rather quick were they to be laid off because the CEO just can't cut it. It's sort of like the cool parent that's also a friend. If they can do that and effectively parent, they're better at it than me. If it comes down to being a friend to your child or parenting them, one is nice and the other is a responsibility and has major repercussions when done wrong.

0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
Isn't keeping your finger on the pulse of the company an important part of the CEO's job though?
- kbenson 3y ago
  What is "the pulse of the company"? Is having a bunch of meeting with people possibly multiple levels below you keeping a pulse on the business, or is it micromanaging, or focusing on an area you understand because it's easier than spending that time on an area which you understand less? I think aCEO should have people that work under them that can actually perform the duties they were hired for. Spot checking department and employees to make sure what's being reported to the CEO is accurate is probably a very good idea, but if the CEO is spending a bunch of time in meetings with people that they've already hired others to manage, that either shows there's a severe problem in that department that requires the CEO's constant attention, or a lack of trust in the people they hired to run that department to actually do what they were hired for. Neither are signs of what you'd want to see, IMO.

kyawzazaw 3y ago

> he would drop in on meetings if he had breaks in his calendar Is this a positive thing, tho? I am not sure. I am just curious.

tsunamifury 3y ago
This was referenced by several at the manager level as their specific complaint. They worried why he was there and not solving higher level issues the company was facing.

encoderer 3y ago

Do they raise money from anybody aside from the gm board?