4 ms·

This should be a more widely used tactic. It keeps the experience onboard and possibly stops them from consulting for a competitor! And it's probably better fo

This should be a more widely used tactic. It keeps the experience onboard and possibly stops them from consulting for a competitor! And it's probably better for the individual too. Going from having a role that takes up a huge amount of your life to zero in a short time probably isn't healthy for that person (or their family).

Onavo 2y ago
This is only if the company is not stuck in a rut. In academia, the state of the art advances when the previous generation dies off.
- rowanG077 2y ago
  An often repeated idiom without any evidence.
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    There's a lot of evidence... a century or more old. The lack of recent evidence is inherent, it doesn't say we fixed it. But also we also changed enough stuff on the last century that blindly applying older lessons isn't a gainfully strategy.
    - jcranmer 2y ago
      Such as? I can think of a few cases where the crotchety old guy poured absolute shit on the new guys who came up with radical new theories that turned out to be correct. But in both cases (Linus Pauling with respect to quasicrystals, Eric Thompson with respect to Mayan script decipherment), the field moved on long before he died.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    Does science advance, one funeral at a time? Pierre Azoulay, Christian Fons-Rosen, and Joshua S. Graff Zivin https://assets.aeaweb.org/asset-server/files/9157.pdf https://assets.aeaweb.org/asset-server/files/9157.pdf
- whiterknight 2y ago
  This academic system has only existed for 100-150 years. Less for science.
MBCook 2y ago
This is the same old guard who has been steering the ship more and more directly towards world-wide antitrust issues as the years have gone on. Maybe this isn’t the ideal strategy in their case?
- klelatti 2y ago
  I made a general point about wider application without commenting on Apple's use so not sure why you have responded to me rather than commenting at the top level. Are companies in general heading toward antitrust issues?
  - MBCook 2y ago
    You’re right you didn’t comment on Apple. That’s why I replied to you. Because while I think you’re correct in general in specific regard to Apple I think this is a bad strategy.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - klelatti 2y ago
      You replied to me because your point has nothing to do with the point I made. Sorry still no idea why.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    I think it's true in general: keeping the old guard around only helps if the new leaders aren't having good ideas, but then it's a screwed situation anyway, as the whole succession plan is botched and you get the Disney drama. On the other side, if the successors are decent but go in a direction the old guard doesn't approve of, it creates an overly tense and conflictual situation. I see very little upside TBH.
    - klelatti 2y ago
      > keeping the old guard around only helps if the new leaders aren't having good ideas Combining fresh ideas with experience is a bad idea?
Zafira 2y ago
I disagree, it's really damaging to refuse to let go of the reins. Bob Iger at Disney never really took succession seriously and then never really left which has left the company somewhat rudderless because the ship is now dependent on a person and not culture/policy.
- klelatti 2y ago
  Lack of succession planning and an overdominant CEO are utterly distinct concepts to the approach being described here.
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    One usually begets the other.
    - klelatti 2y ago
      Quite the opposite. Lack of succession planning is unlikely to be correlated with the effort required to organise retention of staff as Apple do. And an overly dominant CEO generally doesn’t like senior staff who might provide counsel to stick around.
- usui 2y ago
  Do you feel moreso people depend on culture, moreso culture depends on people, or equally interdependent?
- philistine 2y ago
  I don't think Iger is comparable; all his groomed successors left before he did, so Chapek ended up with the hot potato to terrible results. Apple has not lost a single potential successor to Tim Cook. And don't count Johnny Ive it's ridiculous to assume he could run that company. In 2004 maybe but certainly not the giant of 2024.
akira2501 2y ago
> It keeps the experience onboard and possibly stops them from consulting for a competitor! This means the labor market is not operating correctly. For a company to be able to fork out a salary not for production but for protection you've done something really wrong in your monetary policy.
- klelatti 2y ago
  You’re assuming it’s just about pay when that’s not necessarily the case. Lots of loyalty in many cases but still want to stay involved. Push them out of the door and they will find something to do and that may be at a competitor.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    > You’re assuming it’s just about pay That's how markets work. Pay is information that everyone participating can use to make judgements. > Lots of loyalty in many cases That's a non tangible item and it means people are finding excuses to avoid participating in the market. > they will find something to do and that may be at a competitor. Your goal is to have lots of "somethings" being done. That's how your economy grows and new opportunities are created.
    - klelatti 2y ago
      So the labour market only operates correctly if people opt for the highest paid job and do the most work? Hard disagree from me then.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - c0balt 2y ago
      > That's a non tangible item and it means people are finding excuses to avoid participating in the market. > Your goal is to have lots of "somethings" being done. That's how your economy grows and new opportunities are created. That's quite a slanted view of how people participate in a real labour market. Pay is the easy to quantify stuff but most humans tend to have more than just pay as a priority, among others: - time required for work (vs time spent on private endeavours, family, friends, ...). A Family and/or a healthy social life is a goal for most people. - location (you might prefer to live in certain places due to culture or QoL) - company culture (ideally, you might like how and with whom you work)

Onavo 2y ago

This is only if the company is not stuck in a rut. In academia, the state of the art advances when the previous generation dies off.

rowanG077 2y ago
An often repeated idiom without any evidence.
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  There's a lot of evidence... a century or more old. The lack of recent evidence is inherent, it doesn't say we fixed it. But also we also changed enough stuff on the last century that blindly applying older lessons isn't a gainfully strategy.
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    Such as? I can think of a few cases where the crotchety old guy poured absolute shit on the new guys who came up with radical new theories that turned out to be correct. But in both cases (Linus Pauling with respect to quasicrystals, Eric Thompson with respect to Mayan script decipherment), the field moved on long before he died.
- fragmede 2y ago
  Does science advance, one funeral at a time? Pierre Azoulay, Christian Fons-Rosen, and Joshua S. Graff Zivin https://assets.aeaweb.org/asset-server/files/9157.pdf https://assets.aeaweb.org/asset-server/files/9157.pdf
whiterknight 2y ago
This academic system has only existed for 100-150 years. Less for science.

MBCook 2y ago

This is the same old guard who has been steering the ship more and more directly towards world-wide antitrust issues as the years have gone on. Maybe this isn’t the ideal strategy in their case?

klelatti 2y ago
I made a general point about wider application without commenting on Apple's use so not sure why you have responded to me rather than commenting at the top level. Are companies in general heading toward antitrust issues?
- MBCook 2y ago
  You’re right you didn’t comment on Apple. That’s why I replied to you. Because while I think you’re correct in general in specific regard to Apple I think this is a bad strategy.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - klelatti 2y ago
    You replied to me because your point has nothing to do with the point I made. Sorry still no idea why.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  I think it's true in general: keeping the old guard around only helps if the new leaders aren't having good ideas, but then it's a screwed situation anyway, as the whole succession plan is botched and you get the Disney drama. On the other side, if the successors are decent but go in a direction the old guard doesn't approve of, it creates an overly tense and conflictual situation. I see very little upside TBH.
  - klelatti 2y ago
    > keeping the old guard around only helps if the new leaders aren't having good ideas Combining fresh ideas with experience is a bad idea?

Zafira 2y ago

I disagree, it's really damaging to refuse to let go of the reins. Bob Iger at Disney never really took succession seriously and then never really left which has left the company somewhat rudderless because the ship is now dependent on a person and not culture/policy.

klelatti 2y ago
Lack of succession planning and an overdominant CEO are utterly distinct concepts to the approach being described here.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  One usually begets the other.
  - klelatti 2y ago
    Quite the opposite. Lack of succession planning is unlikely to be correlated with the effort required to organise retention of staff as Apple do. And an overly dominant CEO generally doesn’t like senior staff who might provide counsel to stick around.
usui 2y ago
Do you feel moreso people depend on culture, moreso culture depends on people, or equally interdependent?
philistine 2y ago
I don't think Iger is comparable; all his groomed successors left before he did, so Chapek ended up with the hot potato to terrible results. Apple has not lost a single potential successor to Tim Cook. And don't count Johnny Ive it's ridiculous to assume he could run that company. In 2004 maybe but certainly not the giant of 2024.

akira2501 2y ago

> It keeps the experience onboard and possibly stops them from consulting for a competitor! This means the labor market is not operating correctly. For a company to be able to fork out a salary not for production but for protection you've done something really wrong in your monetary policy.

klelatti 2y ago
You’re assuming it’s just about pay when that’s not necessarily the case. Lots of loyalty in many cases but still want to stay involved. Push them out of the door and they will find something to do and that may be at a competitor.
- akira2501 2y ago
  > You’re assuming it’s just about pay That's how markets work. Pay is information that everyone participating can use to make judgements. > Lots of loyalty in many cases That's a non tangible item and it means people are finding excuses to avoid participating in the market. > they will find something to do and that may be at a competitor. Your goal is to have lots of "somethings" being done. That's how your economy grows and new opportunities are created.
  - klelatti 2y ago
    So the labour market only operates correctly if people opt for the highest paid job and do the most work? Hard disagree from me then.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - c0balt 2y ago
    > That's a non tangible item and it means people are finding excuses to avoid participating in the market. > Your goal is to have lots of "somethings" being done. That's how your economy grows and new opportunities are created. That's quite a slanted view of how people participate in a real labour market. Pay is the easy to quantify stuff but most humans tend to have more than just pay as a priority, among others: - time required for work (vs time spent on private endeavours, family, friends, ...). A Family and/or a healthy social life is a goal for most people. - location (you might prefer to live in certain places due to culture or QoL) - company culture (ideally, you might like how and with whom you work)