45% of business leaders admitted they were making major business decisions with ChatGPT. 😂️️
45% of business leaders admitted they were making major business decisions with ChatGPT. 😂️️
Impartial, data driven AI models could be an appealing replacement for biased , egotistical CEOs — and cheaper, too.
You're viewing a single thread.
I’d said for years that you could replace most CEOs with a random number generator and just save a lot of money with no downsides, and this is just a slightly better version of that so I feel vindicated
In 90+% of companies the CEO is an active liability who is unlikely to do anything but harm, while being a massive expense to keep on payroll. If any company tried to actually maximize profits step 1 would be firing your CEO or changing their pay to be the minimum entry level you pay your employees, because it’s universally the job with the lowest requirements in a company. If there is one job in any company that you could pick any person of the street and they’d do as good if not better than who you currently have it’s CEO. The only reason this doesn’t happen is because the fox is guarding the hen house, and obviously CEOs aren’t going to decide to eliminate their own positions.
For larger corporations I imagine a lot of the operational side does not need much guidance. Actions taken by the C-suite or consultancies that have positive outcome I imagine are in the overwhelming majority of cases taking credit for normal growth, or in crisis periods just regression to the mean.
I remember someone recently crediting Starbucks's revenue growth in an era in the wake of the great recession and when unemployment rapidly declined as being due to a logo rebrand. And it's like do you seriously not check other economic factors. The notable change in revenue growth is a decline during the great recession and a catch up after.
the fox is guarding the hen house, and obviously CEOs aren’t going to decide to eliminate their own positions
This is a great point. The only people who could be adequately critical of a CEO aren't in a position to oust them, and the ones who are in that position are huffing the same paint as the CEO.
But management is a real skill, as is running a large organization. "CEOs are rock stars that radically improve companies singlehandedly" is a bad take, but so is "anyone off the street could do a competent job running a national company."
"anyone off the street could do a competent job running a national company."
I think their point was "anyone off the street could do just as bad of a job running a national company."
It’s not so much “anyone off the street could do a competent job running a national company” as much as “the average CEO is no better at doing a competent job running a national company than a random person off the street, and are often actively worse than random”
It’s the same as Congress. Our current system actively selects for people who are bad at the job, so in comparison to that a random lottery would be an improvement.
I see what you're saying. Although I think it's a mistake to think that CEOs aren't usually good at their jobs; it's more that their jobs are to generate short-term returns for shareholders, not to keep the company healthy long term. A lot of what we see as incompetence or short-sightedness is them doing what they're really paid to do. You can say similar things about Congress.
But management is a real skill
80% of being a good manager is navigating the dumb ass enviroments people above you have created so your team can still function, which is to say, you don't need to do that as a CEO
There should be a lot of proactively checking in with the people you manage and addressing/heading off problems, plus seeing what their priorities are. Training and assessment (which requires a lot of attention to do well) are big, too.
Not underselling the drain of "manager your manager" stuff, but there's a lot of other real tasks, too. I'm in a job where a number of those I mentioned are lacking and their absence creates a ton of issues.
There should be a lot of proactively checking in with the people you manage and addressing/heading off problems, plus seeing what their priorities are.
I'd argue that takes around 10% of a given week unless you start micromanaging deeply
raining and assessment (which requires a lot of attention to do well) are big, too.
Training takes a lot of work but I'd argue if you're a good manager a constant need to train new people points back at shitty work enviroment you have to deal with. You keep nigh the same team for like 3 years and in the grand scheme of things job training is not really eating up your hours
A lot of this is very dependent on the type of work and how many people you're managing.
True, true, however I'd argue anything over like 5 - 10 people or so is organisational failure again because it just becomes unmanageable for above reasons
Not that it don't happen, don't get me wrong, but that's just squeezing people
It's really hard to make general statements because of the variance in work environments. A big box store, a large restaurant, a factory, a mine, an agricultural job, etc. may have quite a few more people than 10-15 working per shift, but may only require one manager per shift. Those are the areas where managerial work is light (as you pointed out) so you can scale up without adding much more of it. I can also think of more complex jobs where workers are pretty self-contained (law, accounting, medicine), where if your workforce is experienced enough you may need only light managerial work.
may have quite a few more people than 10-15 working per shift, but may only require one manager per shift. Those are the areas where managerial work is light (as you pointed out) so you can scale up without adding much more of it.
I disagree heavily here, again. It's just all of those people are getting fucking fleeced because nobody wants to pay for a foreman. Join a Union, folks.