4 ms·
Would you be willing to consider that some half baked theory about why CEOs are the manifestation of luck is actually just an unhealthy way of coping with failu
by kolbe 2y ago
Would you be willing to consider that some half baked theory about why CEOs are the manifestation of luck is actually just an unhealthy way of coping with failures?
- saagarjha 2y agoConsider? Sure. I see a lot of evidence that points away from it, though.
- swader999 2y agoMore like survivor bias. For every eBay, amazon, Starbucks ceo, there's a multitude of failures that weren't as good or lucky.
- kolbe 2y agoSo, bad CEOs are bad? What a revelation. We're not isolating this analysis to bad ones (who generally don't last very long). We're talking about a blanket, overarching, ill-informed and bitter "analysis" that contends CEOs are meritless lottery winners. Have you ever seen any process of filtering job candidates that doesn't have massive failures? Look no further than sports. There is no profession with more accessible information about candidate qualifications, and we still see significant failures, signing people to hundreds of millions of dollars who never produce any value over a replacement player. Does that mean the process is no better than throwing darts at phone book? No. There are still actual skills that are hard to attain, and are decent predictors of performance. When it comes to CEOs, despite the fact that this process doesn't value YOUR skills very highly doesn't mean it's purely random. It means you've either chosen to ignore this filtering process, you never learned what the process is, or you aren't good enough to stand out within it. But that doesn't mean it's a zero-signal filtration.