7 ms·
Strange it isn't former CEO as you wouldn't have a CEO in a flat company. Seems hypocritical to me, but maybe it isn't and I don't get the distinction.
by UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
Strange it isn't former CEO as you wouldn't have a CEO in a flat company. Seems hypocritical to me, but maybe it isn't and I don't get the distinction.
- a3voices 11y agoSomeone has to talk to the investors though, right?
- broknbottle 11y agobill in maintenance will take on that role.
- encoderer 11y agoJust because you don't need management doesn't mean you don't need leadership.
- silverbax88 11y agoRight, "nobody's job is essential...well except mine, of course."
- kzhahou 11y agoGood managers lead.
- zer0defex 11y agoNot every leader is a good manager.
- maxxxxx 11y ago" "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"
- venomsnake 11y agoDepends. Someone has to sign the contracts. And to be the top dog legal wise. We don't have good legal framework that endorses flat corporations. Yet.
- duaneb 11y agoCompanies are required to have a CEO, as (famously) Gabe Newell does.
- timdierks 11y agoZappos doesn't; it's a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amazon. They could all just be subordinate to Jeff Bezos.
- rifung 11y agoDoes the fact that it's a subsidiary mean it's not a company? Otherwise, what separates a subsidiary from just being another team? I assume the difference is that a subsidiary can be legally considered to be a company on its own altogether, but I'm not a lawyer. If it is though, then assuming companies need a CEO, Zappos still needs one.
- emodendroket 11y agoThat's still rather different than a company with a hierarchy several levels deep.
- no_flags 11y agoI am wondering this too. Is it flat with a handful of executives on top?