Great that it takes people months nowadays interviewing to get hired for a mid level role, but apparently you can offer a half dozen people unvested, uninterviewed CEO roles at a billion dollar company on a whim.
Fun how that goes.
Fun how that goes.
Occam's Razor. This is impulsive firing, with impulsive hiring on the way.
But I hear she's currently unavailable...
example: “Liz Holmes Wants You to Forget About Elizabeth”
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/07/business/elizabeth-holmes...
I followed the story as it unfolded somewhat closer than I typically do. I said relatively little about it because I'm a woman on an overwhelmingly male forum and my point of view seemed wholly alien and unparseable here.
I think her gender contributed to the debacle. I'm not saying that makes her innocent, but I think there were extenuating circumstances.
The difference is that, for that mid level role, there are dozens of candidates who could fill it, who all look like good candidates on paper. It takes that long to sort through them all to find the person they like the most.
But imagine for a moment that they write a job description, and they can only expect a few people to meet the requirements ever, and you're one of them. Also the job should've been filled yesterday.
It's not going to take months to fill it. It'll take a week or less.
This was that situation. But normally, those executive searches take months.
You know who's a key player in this story, probably the most successful businessperson involved, who only got the CEO job after 5-6 months? Satya Nadella.
And he would probably agree with you that this was a terrible way to hire a CEO that reflects poorly on the company.
My take: the board already demonstrated they fire badly, and here we’ll see them hire bad as well.
If Sam did something bad enough to warrant being removed as soon as they learned it, chucking someone you know personally and trust in the position while you then be thorough would seem the least bad course of action.
If Sam did not do something bad enough to warrant being removed as soon as they learned it, then firing him without any succession plan in place was a bad move and is "firing badly", but the hiring situation seems to me as exactly the same as in the "Sam did something really bad" line. Claiming both bad hiring and bad firing for the one decision seems like double counting to me, and will lead to circular reasoning. They hired badly ergo we can assume they fired badly, therefore they hired badly.
Most, if not all, of the group of people we are talking about were born from rich parents who could afford them to study in the most prestigious universities of America and they were in their prime years when computers expanded everywhere during the 90´s/00’s and also when the economy was booming like never before in the human history.
Those people are now in positions of extreme power that never existed before that. In fact, they are all in power to decide if your future billion dollars company will live or die, and if they allow it to live, it will be under their control.
And if you somehow manage to fill through the cracks, you’ll ultimately be offered some big money to sell them your company well before you have the opportunity to become one of them.
That's not what I said.
And not even trying what ? I'm not saying you can't create a succesful company and earn a lot of money. I'm talking about power. The type of power those people have is virtually inaccessible to anyone. Because they have enough money to stop you in your way up. They have a wide range of options between destructing your business, taking control of it, or giving you enough money so that you stop your ascension.
even proven NFL coaches are just offered a job