2 ms·
> The world is not overflowing with people who can even theoretically lead a $77bn company I strongly disagree. It's a matter of surrounding yourself with capa
by bitcharmer 3y ago
> The world is not overflowing with people who can even theoretically lead a $77bn company
I strongly disagree. It's a matter of surrounding yourself with capable people and there's a huge factor of financial inertia. I guarantee you most HN-ers could run Google or Apple for 5 years without causing their value to plummet.
- JohnBooty 3y agoA company in good financial shape with strong positive inertia? Sure, but I don't know that describes Boeing at the time of his hire. (Maybe it does, not sure) I still don't necessarily disagree, but you left out the second part of my sentence which is rather significant: "and will be acceptable candidates in the eyes of the board/shareholders." Sure, Random HN User #587942 might be a decent Apple CEO. Hell, they might even make a great POTUS. Aside from having one's finger on the nuclear button, I think a POTUS is primarily a strong delegator in much the sense that a CEO is. That doesn't mean they are going to be remotely acceptable as a candidate in the eyes of the board + shareholders. Nobody is going to stick their neck out for Random HN User #587942. They are going to pick somebody with a positive track record of leading big companies. This isn't ideal! I'm not defending it. I'm just saying why it happens. It's the C-suite equivalent of "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."