Hacker News Reader

Comment by phkahler | Hacker News Reader

>> At some point "management" and "executive management" started (falsely) being viewed as their own dedicated skillset that is independent and unrelated to the business itself, when in reality they still require specific understanding of the skills and processes over which they preside. You can't just drop any CEO into any other CEO position, and think they'll succeed.

There are aspects of management that are independent of the business being managed. But somehow in the 90's CEOs and business schools turned that into something like "management is a generic function independent of the business being run. With an MBA and you can run Coke GM or Intel all the same."

View on HN

> "management is a generic function independent of the business being run. With an MBA and you can run Coke GM or Intel into the ground all the same."

I felt it needed a little tweak. You are exactly right otherwise IMO.

They were all very successful at doing that. The financialization of everything was the death of all these businesses.

Very well and succinctly put.

When I talk about the same topic with a friend, we say variants of "MBAs ruin everything they touch". But what we really mean is what you said.

Sure, I don't mean to imply that there aren't additional skills required to manage something, but you still have to fundamentally understand the thing that you are managing.

The idea that management can be subordinate/project/industry-agnostic is the mistake.

You can't (based purely on work experience, not talking about individual abilities) go from managing a coffee shop to running IBM... OR VICE VERSA

If this assertion is rankling anyone, I invite them to look up how many private investment firms are failing spectacularly to manage small businesses they acquire (e.g. dentists and vets) and running them into the ground, by trying to make them operate like SaaS companies.

So true. A friend of mine worked as a manager at an ECO diary producer (milk, cheese yoghurt). An investment firm bought the owners who build the company from nothing for a substantial sum. They then brought in a new young executive team who mainly had experience and making online clothes and food retail startups. Initially the owners had a requirement to consult to the business for some amount of time. That was quickly dropped as they didn't want the old owners to "interfere" (essentially telling the exec that they what they wanted to do didn't work). After less than a year my friend and the product manager where the only managers left from before and they had become the "nay sayers" (I.e. telling the boars their ideas and execution don't work in this industry) and where eventually let go. By this time they had lost major costumers, majorly invested into equipment that still didn't work (as the product manager predicted from the get go) and the company was probably worth less than half. I just read the news that 7 years later they sold at 2% of the purchase price. Cases like this should really be mandatory study.

> private investment firms are failing spectacularly to manage small businesses they acquire (e.g. dentists and vets) and running them into the ground

Absolutely, but (and this depends upon the "financialization of everything" point someone made above) that doesn't matter, because in the meantime they'll have personally made a profit on the deal. Building (or keeping) a sustainable business was never one of their goals. I call it "extractive capitalism", and it's ruining the world.

the old "it's all the same shit" fallacy that i loathe so dearly

I can only say that it's really refreshing when you talk to a CEO who is interested and understands the products the company is working on. Unfortunately it's pretty widespread to have the top layers of the company only thinking about numbers and deadlines, not the product.

Defector had a great piece on roughly this point: https://defector.com/how-will-the-golden-age-of-making-it-wo...

You can't blame an MBA for this debacle. Léo Apotheker studied economics in college and had no formal education in management.

Drucker would argue you need practice (e.g. actually doing the work) rather than an educational background to be a good manager.[0] So I would argue he didn't have the experience to be a manager at that level.

https://mlari.ciam.edu/peter-drucker-s-vision-of-management-...

You say 90s but sounds suspiciously like John Scully and Apple in the 80s

Lou Gerstner at IBM is probably the outlier that supported this line of thinking. He was at Amex, RJR Nabisco before IBM.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but IIRC Gerstner's time at IBM was 100% financialization. He didn't solve any of IBM's core problems. Outside of the momentary bright spot of "Global Services" the largest impact he had was selling off IBM's immense real-estate (and other) capital they had acquired by being a capex business for a 100 years, and converted that all to a decade long free rent/etc 0 opex business, Along with EOL'ing their pension program, and a lot of other 'quality of life' stuff that made them one of the best companies to work for. It made the numbers look great as he "reduced overhead" in the short term, bur just created further long term problems. If IBM could have caught just a single one of the tech waves of the next 25 years they would have done fine, but for some reason they continue to snatch defeat despite seemingly always being in the right place at the right time. But it seems they always overcharge, over engineer, whatever their solutions and the market rejects them. (ex, flash arrays, POWER as an alternate hyperscaler server arch, watson/ML, failing to capitalize on centos, etc, etc, etc) while dumping spinning disk, fabs, etc at roughly the right time.

Was that intended to be similar to the real life movement of John Sculley from Pepsi to Apple?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com