5 ms·
> I do buy into the narrative that selection bias for lucky risk-takers explains a lot of bad leaders It’s not even actual lucky high risk gambles that are suc
by darth_avocado 1y ago
> I do buy into the narrative that selection bias for lucky risk-takers explains a lot of bad leaders
It’s not even actual lucky high risk gambles that are successful that are rewarded. A lot of times, it’s just perceived success. Plenty of leaders fail upwards. Reward for incompetence and failure is a promotion that is mostly dictated by who you know in the organization. And perceived success is a huge factor in “who you know”.
- bonoboTP 1y agoMuch more likely that what you see as failure by certain criteria was an overall success by the criteria of the people who make decisions about hiring them "upwards".
- darth_avocado 1y agoIf running massive vanity projects for years, that get completely scrapped, while you get so far behind your competitors that you have to layoff half the org and then spend hundreds of millions to acquire those competitors is called success by some metrics, then I would say you’re prioritizing the wrong metrics.
- gopher_space 1y agoIf there aren't really any failure states for you on a personal level why even spend time planning?
- nosianu 1y agoYou are not contradiction the parent commenter, you actually say the same. A key point was/is that they use the wrong criteria. The parent commenter wrote > it’s just perceived success and the abstract from the paper says > suggesting firms reward observed success without recognizing underlying risk tolerance
- CGMthrowaway 1y ago>It’s not even actual lucky high risk gambles that are successful that are rewarded. A lot of times, it’s just perceived success. Or, perhaps relatedly, short-term success which sets up long-term failure - but by then the leader has moved on from the role.
- ashoeafoot 1y agoReminds me of the military where being present when a disaster caused by upper echelons strikes can lead to "careers due to silence".
- serjester 1y agoThis is just the Peter principle - individuals will keep getting promoted until they're no longer competent.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 1y agoGP is arguing that known incompetence is promoted for political reasons. Peter principle is far more idealistically meritocratic.
- pton_xd 1y agoYep, always entertaining to watch these Marissa Mayer / Ron Johnson types take a step outside their perception bubble.
- ranger207 1y agoYep. Your startup fails? "Wow you founded a startup! Join our exec team!" You lost a billion dollars? "Wow you were trusted with a billion dollars! Join our exec team!" You presided over the death of a famous and beloved institution (say Radio Shack, Toys R Us, Yahoo, etc)? "Wow you worked at a famous place! Join our exec team!" At a certain level, risks no longer are about potential upsides and potential downsides, they're about potential upsides and potential massive upsides. Risk taking has no negatives