Facebook management moves around but people don’t leave
recode.net
recode.net
Honestly I don't care much for Facebook's methods and I think they are a net negative on the world, but I still really look up to Mark Zuckerberg as a leader.
If so, I'm not sure how you could possibly consider him someone worth looking up to as a leader.
If you take everything he said and every question he dodged during his testimony at face value, it would indicate that he knows next to nothing about his own company.
If you don't take it at face value, option two is that he's a liar.
Those aren't the kind of qualities I consider worth looking up to.
This looks even worse coming from someone who runs a company that seeks to destroy the concept of privacy for the entire population (or, at least, the portion of the population that can't afford to buy the houses around their own and build 6 foot walls around 750 acre Hawaiian retreats for themselves like Zuckerberg has). The hypocrisy is incredible.
"Sir, do you know how fast you were driving. Were you aware that the speed limit is 55 mph? Do you know that hundreds of children die every year from drivers like yourself who value their own time over the lives of others?"
Money will make people do crazy things. I think he's shown time and time again in his handling of situations that he's been pretty ineffective and his primary strategy is to say "we're sorry we have to do better". It's lots of excuses, that's not good leadership material in my book.
There's also crazy stories like the time he gave a speech proclaiming "Carthago delenda est", casting Facebook as Rome and Google as Carthage. Then everyone went into lockdown over the weekend so they could dig through Google+ and copy whatever they could. According to the same book (Chaos Monkeys), Zuck's inner circle is basically a bunch of sycophants (aka Friend of Zuck). It also repeatedly refers to Facebook as a cult. Why do you think they had major failures like the most recent one? Sycophancy is not a working strategy.
Surely he's made some great choices (Instagram acquisition), but how can you begin to separate his actual ability with the power/wealth he can bestow on anyone, biasing their view of him? The guy could fail 1,000 times over at this point and still be a billionaire.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/business/facebo...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/16/facebook-...
The stuff that happens there is kind of comical. Would effective leaders really run an org like that?
Actually, to me, that is incredibly powerful. I can't really evaluate Zuckerberg's effectiveness, but you can't fix problems if you can't admit fault, and many in leadership positions never admit fault.
"I'm sorry, it won't happen this time" is what abusive relationships are made of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4zd7X98eOs
Do people find this sincere? It seems fake/manipulative and too convenient. Facebook has been doing this for a decade+.
Which is where you might be confused, you can be incredibly insincere and abusive (seems common in business) but still a great leader (great in this context not meaning just), as they've shown they can a) get out of sticky situations b) continue making money and c) have a relatively happy team. So in this scenario what would actually back up your argument would be demonstrations of the apologies having zero impact, the team hating the apologies and thus being less productive, and/or a general loss of revenue.
I'd be more inclined to agree if it wasn't working so well for him.
That is incredible leadership from a capitalistic perspective. Look at other business leaders like Tony Hayward of BP or John Stumpf of Wells Fargo. Getting away with atrocities under the banner of "We're sorry" is not easy. It takes years of practice and a highly orchestrated performance on Capitol Hill and other places.
But do they... agree with that "mission" -- or more specifically, what has become of it in 2018?
That's the question you should be asking them.
This is usually not true for successful companies, but it's especially not true in facebook's case. Mark Zuckerberg has kept incredibly strong control of facebook, holding more than 50% of voting control even as it's grown to a half trillion dollar company - so he definitely deserves credit for what his company has become.
Also, he has made some strong, unintuitive decisions along the way (no advertising in the first several years, real name policy, dropping out of college, moving to silicon valley, hiring experienced tech executives, buying a dead-simple photo filter app for 1 billion dollars) that can directly be attributed to facebook's success today. It's hard to remember today, but in the first ~5 years of Facebook it was very far from obvious that facebook would dominate the social space.
> no advertising in the first several years,
Standard VC funded startup
> real name policy
This may be the one non-obvious choice.
> dropping out of college
Like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs
> moving to silicon valley
ahem, document.location == "ycombinator.com"
> hiring experienced tech executives
How is hiring experienced tech executives unintuitive for a tech company? Google hired Eric Schmidt. Microsoft hired Steve Ballmer.
> buying a dead-simple photo filter app for 1 billion dollars
Paying a fortune for apps with eyeballs was the m.o. of the first dotcom era, and hasn't subsided.
Seems fair. The public drops all of Facebook's failures at Zuckerburg's feet, too. Nobody ever said, "Damn that third-tier middle manager in the reporting department who ordered the database change that made me unable to find my cousin's best friend's uncle's dog's page!"
Why does Facebook even exist? Zuckerberg fought off several cofounders. Do you think Facebook would be what is it if the Winklevoss brothers ran it?
>I still really look up to Mark Zuckerberg as a leader.
these statements are incompatible.
who do you think dictates the methods? who do you think decides the ends for which those methods are directed?
who do you think is the one who baldly avoided answering up and down over and over in front of a congressional panel?
hint: it's zuck.
How did we get to the point where we so easily separated leaders actions from their public image?
It's the logical equivalent of saying "I condemn what the Nazis did, but I respect Hitler's oratory ability to inspire a country", as if his abilities as a leader in no way influenced the Holocaust.
It's crazy to me how people logically isolate a leader's words and actions from the consequences of the institutions they lead in this case.
Of course they like the guy. He essentially wrote them a free winning lottery ticket. I'd like him too. Try asking literally anyone else on earth how they feel about "Zuck", though.
Does anybody have any suggestions about how to become like this?
Most of us sadly don't have the privilege of "leaving" anytime we want because we can't pass every interview.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/technology/03facebook.htm...
"But a number of Facebook’s early employees are giving up their stable jobs..."
http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-former-employees-are...
This is such a meaningless non-statement.
“There are more could-be Picasso’s at Facebook than any other company”. Wow. #inspired. If only they picked up the brush.
Be less concerned about being a CEO and more concerned about creating things of value.
Isn't that basically how the article is representing these people? That they don't care about being CEO and just want to be where they can create things of the most value?
It makes me wonder about the deeper causality. Do execs stay because of the mission and that causes stock appreciation? Or do execs stick around because of stock appreciation and then explain it through the mission?
Those don't seem like traits of people who work at Facebook, perhaps this is the reason they don't leave.
The point is that the people who do join and have enough money to break out on their own are not doing so.
I have typically chosen to live with housemates regardless of salary, because otherwise home just feels sort of empty and dead, and it's a lot of work trying to organize all one's own social hosting single-handed.
Really? I am genuinely confused about how this would come as a surprise.
"It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It"
Nowadays, s/Man/Person/. Women of course have equal right to be hypocrites.
You know that how life works, you hire people who you trust and you trust friends, colleagues you worked for couple years.
Sometimes you do not have option but bring in C level employee from outside, but that is huge thing. Probably that person will also be from network of biggest share holders, not person from the street.
Tillerson, for example, found that the State Department is a very, very different beast than Exxon.
"Tillerson was “one of the worst secretaries of state” in modern history, according to experts from across the political spectrum."
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/13/16029526/rex-tillerson-f...
If you want more, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/16/us/politics/a...
You might think you're being the calm and reasonable one here, but you're not asking this question in good faith. It's clear you just want to pick a political fight on hacker news. While we are not above politics here, there is a time and a place for that. And it's not here or now.
The best compliment I could give Tillerson is he probably WANTS the State Department to collapse which is why he's utterly under-managing and under-staffing it. By any other metric, of course, he's an abject failure.