4 ms·

honestly unless you're a owner it's not your place to critique the management style of the ceo. yes if you disagree with something specific you should speak up,

honestly unless you're a owner it's not your place to critique the management style of the ceo. yes if you disagree with something specific you should speak up, but the reality is that you're a hired hand. also if the ceo managed to scale up to 30 people without any help something tells me that either he's doing something right or has enough money banked to make and learn from his own mistakes. now if you don't like the ceo or that culture you should leave. although unless the ceo is a trust fund kid with cash to burn i think i'd want to learn something from someone who went from one person to thirty (because that's damn hard to do without outside funding).

j_baker 14y ago
also if the ceo managed to scale up to 30 people without any help something tells me that either he's doing something right or has enough money banked to make and learn from his own mistakes. How do you know this business was built by the CEO? It's very frequently the case that this kind of CEO is adding no value and is simply adept at taking credit for their underlings' work.
- michaelpinto 14y ago
  From the post it sounds like the CEO is the chief funder — so while it's not 100% clear if he was the founder (yes maybe he did purchase the business from a previous owner) he or she has "put their money where their mouth is". Although on the flip side the post doesn't indicate that the CEO isn't the original founder. But the notion of "taking credit" is sort of at odds with the micromanagement of the employees. Also for a CEO that's also a funder the only real question is making money or not. For example I'm sure even when you had a CEO like Steve Jobs who always thanked his workers, the reality is that most people only know who Steve Jobs is rather than individual team members.
  - j_baker 14y ago
    But the notion of "taking credit" is sort of at odds with the micromanagement of the employees. No it's not. "You wouldn't have completed this project if I hadn't been there to correct your mistakes." Good leaders correct details because they think they're important. Micromanagers correct minor details as a means of making it look like they're adding value (oftentimes this is a lie they tell themselves just as much as it is one they tell others). Plus, funding a company doesn't buy one a CEO spot. If it did, all startups would be run by VCs.
phillmv 14y ago
>honestly unless you're a owner it's not your place to critique the management style of the ceo. Of course it is. It's not like he's some ubermensch beyond flaws or with an infinite capacity for reasoning. You can micromanage 0-20 people to success but it starts to fall apart when you begin to have employees whose names you only sorta remember.
- michaelpinto 14y ago
  it depends on the nature of the business and the capacity of the manager -- for example google didn't start to talk about having a real ceo (i.e. a professional manager) until they hit 200 people. when you join a company you're buying into the culture of that company, and that includes the style of the ceo. so imagine someone telling steve jobs that he's "too passionate about aesthetics" or telling bill gates that "you have really BAD taste" -- clearly you shouldn't be at that company (even if you're correct).

j_baker 14y ago

also if the ceo managed to scale up to 30 people without any help something tells me that either he's doing something right or has enough money banked to make and learn from his own mistakes. How do you know this business was built by the CEO? It's very frequently the case that this kind of CEO is adding no value and is simply adept at taking credit for their underlings' work.

michaelpinto 14y ago
From the post it sounds like the CEO is the chief funder — so while it's not 100% clear if he was the founder (yes maybe he did purchase the business from a previous owner) he or she has "put their money where their mouth is". Although on the flip side the post doesn't indicate that the CEO isn't the original founder. But the notion of "taking credit" is sort of at odds with the micromanagement of the employees. Also for a CEO that's also a funder the only real question is making money or not. For example I'm sure even when you had a CEO like Steve Jobs who always thanked his workers, the reality is that most people only know who Steve Jobs is rather than individual team members.
- j_baker 14y ago
  But the notion of "taking credit" is sort of at odds with the micromanagement of the employees. No it's not. "You wouldn't have completed this project if I hadn't been there to correct your mistakes." Good leaders correct details because they think they're important. Micromanagers correct minor details as a means of making it look like they're adding value (oftentimes this is a lie they tell themselves just as much as it is one they tell others). Plus, funding a company doesn't buy one a CEO spot. If it did, all startups would be run by VCs.

phillmv 14y ago

>honestly unless you're a owner it's not your place to critique the management style of the ceo. Of course it is. It's not like he's some ubermensch beyond flaws or with an infinite capacity for reasoning. You can micromanage 0-20 people to success but it starts to fall apart when you begin to have employees whose names you only sorta remember.

michaelpinto 14y ago
it depends on the nature of the business and the capacity of the manager -- for example google didn't start to talk about having a real ceo (i.e. a professional manager) until they hit 200 people. when you join a company you're buying into the culture of that company, and that includes the style of the ceo. so imagine someone telling steve jobs that he's "too passionate about aesthetics" or telling bill gates that "you have really BAD taste" -- clearly you shouldn't be at that company (even if you're correct).