|
|
|
|
|
|
by danso
3840 days ago
|
|
|
> Ms. Holmes said that she needed secrecy to keep others from stealing her ideas, but several former employees say that Ms. Holmes’s steely focus on her mission — an attribute deeply admired by outsiders — made it difficult for her to acknowledge any serious shortcomings in the company’s products. They say she would become angry and sometimes fire people who pointed out problems. She often spoke as though the company’s technology already existed, they said, rather than as if it were still in development. This seems a little unfair to Holmes. In this one paragraph, anonymous former employees paint Holmes as a megalomaniac -- e.g. she fires people "who pointed out problems" and lies about the existence of technology. She may very well be a megalomaniac, but these assertions should at least have vague anecdotes ("A former employee recalls a 2008 incident in which Holmes fired a senior engineer in a Reply-All email after he replied that he didn't think the machine could be finished on deadline."). The judgment of what is simply pointing out a problem is sometimes context dependent. And nothing else in the story mentions other proof that would affirm that Holmes is a power-freak when it comes to being the CEO. Yes, there are plenty of anecdotes of her being headstrong in negotiations and attempting projects and deals that went nowhere, but that's a different thing than being a vindictive charlatan among her own employees. The NYT sat down with her for a 2.5 hour interview and could have at least confronted her with this and given her a chance to deny it. In contrast, the WSJ, who couldn't score an interview, had actual anecdotes [0] (the hearsay of one of Theranos's chief engineers, who had claimed the technology was a fraud before committing suicide, and emails about fudging the FDA tests). The parts about her pre-Theranos life were similar to the New Yorker's story from last year [1]...it sounds like she was the real deal in terms of being a passionate engineering student. It makes me wonder if she had spent at least a couple more years beefing up not just her engineering experience, but life experience, that some of the poor CEO decisions she's made would have been mitigated. [0] http://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-has-struggled-with-bloo... [1] http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/15/blood-simpler |
|
|
I think that is a very astute observation. When you are in the top 0.01% of CEOs you don't have a lot of scrutiny. Bill Gates says that he got lucky with his success and that graduating is a much more sure path to success (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/upshot/bill-gates-college-...). If you do make mistakes or have a failure and you dropped out then that (for better or worse) is a focus and probably makes it more difficult to bounce back. She hasn't failed yet, but the fact that she didn't spend the extra year or two finishing her degree will make it more difficult if she does fail. And lets be honest. We all fail at least once or twice.