4 ms·

The big thing missing from pg’s essay is how the professional managerial class has this big filter where only those who are willing to jump through hoops for 20

by gizmo 2y ago

The big thing missing from pg’s essay is how the professional managerial class has this big filter where only those who are willing to jump through hoops for 20 years get to the c-suite. In businesses of any size it’s just not possible to get promoted straight up the ranks in your 20s no matter how good you are. Seniority trumps ability. Founders are excluded from this filter process and to nobody’s surprise founders tend to be very different from professional managers but more than that: highly effective founders are nothing like each other either. This should be screaming evidence that the standard way businesses are run filters out the most capable and most effective people from executive positions. This is the kind of thing you would expect profit-driven enterprises to actually care about, but no such luck because the executives who are positioned to make this change are exactly the people who should get replaced with extremely capable oddballs.

bboygravity 2y ago
It does (rarely) happen though. Example: how Ryan Cohen (self-made billionaire founder of Chewy) got himself into a different established company. He bought enough shares for himself, took over the board of an established company and put in some of his own, replaced the shitty CEO (by himself) and turned an established declining company around to profitability and possibly long-term growth.
- TrackerFF 2y ago
  Let's ignore the fact that GameStop is a meme-stock. Has Cohen actually improved the company? Revenue keeps falling, year by year, and other than having more cash on hand - not much seems to be changing. Seems to me that every positive thing that happened to the company, can be credited to the pumping of the stock. The fundamentals haven't changed much.
  - bboygravity 2y ago
    Let's not ignore the fact that you call GameStop a meme-stock. Please explain how it is a meme-stock in 2024 and what that even means? What's the definition? Like how is GameStop not a "real" stock or "real" company? It has 4 billion cash on hand (for 10B market cap company), no debt and is profitable. It had NONE of that before RC bought himself in. How is that a declining company? Or how does this fall under "not much seems to be changing"? Also "every positive thing that happened to the company, can be credited to the pumping of the stock" makes no sense at all. 3 of the 4 billion cash on hand was from stock offerings that happened this year. On 0 news. Every single spike in the past 3 years was on 0 news. You can keep blaming "pumping", that's fine. But you'll have to specify who's doing the pumping and why to make that statement have any meaning. It's unlikely that household investors are doing 100+ million volume A DAY in a company that issued around 300 million stocks total (referring to the 300%+ spike days this year on 0 news).
    - TrackerFF 2y ago
      The long short of it is that revenue keeps falling, they're barely making a profit, and at best, they're just inching toward a net positive. They've been losing money for the past 6 years, and this year they're looking to make a small profit. They have little debt, and lots of cash at hand, but seemingly no good core business model. If they can convert this, great - but they're not much more worth than the cash they have. If they can't use that money to grow, then what good is it?
      - bboygravity 2y ago
        1. They went from 400 million in losses to profitable. 2. Went from 0 cash + debt, to 4 billion cash and no debt. Within 3 years. So what do you expect from new CEO's and BoD who jump into a "dying brick & mortar" and turn it around like that? Like if the above is "nothing", "not good enough" and "declining", what does "good enough" look like to you? IMO this is nothing short of a leadership miracle. The company would not have existed by now if it wasn't for Ryan Cohen. Who by the way has a salary of 0 USD. For the past 3 years. Like why is he doing this for no salary? hmm?
intelVISA 2y ago
> filters out the most capable and most effective people from executive positions Well, yes, because generally somebody who is actually 'the most capable and most effective' will simply be running their own business, why would they waste time climbing the ranks to work for somebody else's yacht? The filter exists because whilst PMCs can't build the ship, a founder can, they're fine at keeping it away from the rocks enough for relevant parties to extract wealth and guard it from the risks posed by hotshot up and comers. Remeber the avg corp is relying on regulatory capture and offshore Java, maybe wrapping OpenAI if it's YC funded - there's barely double digit innovative tech companies for this mythical employee to even captain.
- samvher 2y ago
  > somebody who is actually 'the most capable and most effective' will simply be running their own business, why would they waste time climbing the ranks Maybe I'm being naive, but I think a large part of running a successful business is having a well defined niche / problem you solve. Getting to that point comes with a bunch of barriers and risks, and joining an organization that has that already figured out seems like it can have some advantages?
  - herpdyderp 2y ago
    Also, some of those most capable people don’t have the desire or means to risk entrepreneurship.
- kragen 2y ago
  pubmed centrals? politico-media complexes?
  - guccii 2y ago
    professional managerial class
    - kragen 2y ago
      aha, thanks
btbuildem 2y ago
> it’s just not possible to get promoted straight up the ranks in your 20s no matter how good you are. Seniority trumps ability. Experience. Experience and wisdom is what trumps the exuberant overconfidence of an ignorant youth.
- gizmo 2y ago
  Businesses periodically have to reinvent themselves in order to survive. But it's hard for experienced executives to accept that the playbook that worked for 20 years no longer does. Businesses fail when executives refuse to accept that their accumulated wisdom and experience has lost its value. Exuberant youthful ignorance isn't everything but neither is being an excellent navigator of a world that no longer exists.
cynicalpeace 2y ago
Worryingly sounds like the US government!
aorloff 2y ago
The problem is that very few manager-capable younger folks can truly embrace the thing that has to be done to become a great manager, and that is to cease being an IC. Every startup actually discourages this, which is why so few startups have great young managers.
sevensor 2y ago
> the standard way businesses are run filters out the most capable and most effective people from executive positions You say this like it’s not the intended outcome? If you have money, do you really want to invest in a high variance strategy that relies on a genius pulling rabbits out of a hat? Or do you invest in a sure thing? MBAs are very reliable at extracting value from successful firms. The continued success of the enterprise is a non goal. Same exact thing with Scrum. You have value locked up in some innovative software? Run Scrum on it for a few quarters until the juice is all sucked out, then move on, having reliably delivered features right up until the wheels fell off. It’s not about value creation, it’s about value extraction. Different game, different rules.
throwaway2037 2y ago
> Seniority trumps ability. This is great, pithy phrase. Thank you to share it. Where I work, when I look up the ranks (always, always "old" people), I feel like many of these people could just stop coming to work, and I would not notice for weeks or months. "Zero fucks given" to anyone below them, unless it is ticking a box for their year-end review. Does anyone else feel this way?

by gizmo 2y ago

bboygravity 2y ago

It does (rarely) happen though. Example: how Ryan Cohen (self-made billionaire founder of Chewy) got himself into a different established company. He bought enough shares for himself, took over the board of an established company and put in some of his own, replaced the shitty CEO (by himself) and turned an established declining company around to profitability and possibly long-term growth.

TrackerFF 2y ago
Let's ignore the fact that GameStop is a meme-stock. Has Cohen actually improved the company? Revenue keeps falling, year by year, and other than having more cash on hand - not much seems to be changing. Seems to me that every positive thing that happened to the company, can be credited to the pumping of the stock. The fundamentals haven't changed much.
- bboygravity 2y ago
  Let's not ignore the fact that you call GameStop a meme-stock. Please explain how it is a meme-stock in 2024 and what that even means? What's the definition? Like how is GameStop not a "real" stock or "real" company? It has 4 billion cash on hand (for 10B market cap company), no debt and is profitable. It had NONE of that before RC bought himself in. How is that a declining company? Or how does this fall under "not much seems to be changing"? Also "every positive thing that happened to the company, can be credited to the pumping of the stock" makes no sense at all. 3 of the 4 billion cash on hand was from stock offerings that happened this year. On 0 news. Every single spike in the past 3 years was on 0 news. You can keep blaming "pumping", that's fine. But you'll have to specify who's doing the pumping and why to make that statement have any meaning. It's unlikely that household investors are doing 100+ million volume A DAY in a company that issued around 300 million stocks total (referring to the 300%+ spike days this year on 0 news).
  - TrackerFF 2y ago
    The long short of it is that revenue keeps falling, they're barely making a profit, and at best, they're just inching toward a net positive. They've been losing money for the past 6 years, and this year they're looking to make a small profit. They have little debt, and lots of cash at hand, but seemingly no good core business model. If they can convert this, great - but they're not much more worth than the cash they have. If they can't use that money to grow, then what good is it?
    - bboygravity 2y ago
      1. They went from 400 million in losses to profitable. 2. Went from 0 cash + debt, to 4 billion cash and no debt. Within 3 years. So what do you expect from new CEO's and BoD who jump into a "dying brick & mortar" and turn it around like that? Like if the above is "nothing", "not good enough" and "declining", what does "good enough" look like to you? IMO this is nothing short of a leadership miracle. The company would not have existed by now if it wasn't for Ryan Cohen. Who by the way has a salary of 0 USD. For the past 3 years. Like why is he doing this for no salary? hmm?

intelVISA 2y ago

> filters out the most capable and most effective people from executive positions Well, yes, because generally somebody who is actually 'the most capable and most effective' will simply be running their own business, why would they waste time climbing the ranks to work for somebody else's yacht? The filter exists because whilst PMCs can't build the ship, a founder can, they're fine at keeping it away from the rocks enough for relevant parties to extract wealth and guard it from the risks posed by hotshot up and comers. Remeber the avg corp is relying on regulatory capture and offshore Java, maybe wrapping OpenAI if it's YC funded - there's barely double digit innovative tech companies for this mythical employee to even captain.

samvher 2y ago
> somebody who is actually 'the most capable and most effective' will simply be running their own business, why would they waste time climbing the ranks Maybe I'm being naive, but I think a large part of running a successful business is having a well defined niche / problem you solve. Getting to that point comes with a bunch of barriers and risks, and joining an organization that has that already figured out seems like it can have some advantages?
- herpdyderp 2y ago
  Also, some of those most capable people don’t have the desire or means to risk entrepreneurship.
kragen 2y ago
pubmed centrals? politico-media complexes?
- guccii 2y ago
  professional managerial class
  - kragen 2y ago
    aha, thanks

btbuildem 2y ago

> it’s just not possible to get promoted straight up the ranks in your 20s no matter how good you are. Seniority trumps ability. Experience. Experience and wisdom is what trumps the exuberant overconfidence of an ignorant youth.

gizmo 2y ago
Businesses periodically have to reinvent themselves in order to survive. But it's hard for experienced executives to accept that the playbook that worked for 20 years no longer does. Businesses fail when executives refuse to accept that their accumulated wisdom and experience has lost its value. Exuberant youthful ignorance isn't everything but neither is being an excellent navigator of a world that no longer exists.

cynicalpeace 2y ago

Worryingly sounds like the US government!

aorloff 2y ago

The problem is that very few manager-capable younger folks can truly embrace the thing that has to be done to become a great manager, and that is to cease being an IC. Every startup actually discourages this, which is why so few startups have great young managers.

sevensor 2y ago

> the standard way businesses are run filters out the most capable and most effective people from executive positions You say this like it’s not the intended outcome? If you have money, do you really want to invest in a high variance strategy that relies on a genius pulling rabbits out of a hat? Or do you invest in a sure thing? MBAs are very reliable at extracting value from successful firms. The continued success of the enterprise is a non goal. Same exact thing with Scrum. You have value locked up in some innovative software? Run Scrum on it for a few quarters until the juice is all sucked out, then move on, having reliably delivered features right up until the wheels fell off. It’s not about value creation, it’s about value extraction. Different game, different rules.

throwaway2037 2y ago

> Seniority trumps ability. This is great, pithy phrase. Thank you to share it. Where I work, when I look up the ranks (always, always "old" people), I feel like many of these people could just stop coming to work, and I would not notice for weeks or months. "Zero fucks given" to anyone below them, unless it is ticking a box for their year-end review. Does anyone else feel this way?