|
|
|
|
|
|
by ZenoArrow
3639 days ago
|
|
|
> "conveying it in a way that aligns with their pain points, strategy". In my experience, some executives don't even care too much for facts if it interferes with their agenda. This is usually expressed in subtle ways, but in one instance I've heard an executive directly ask for a report that was easy to manipulate the figures on in order to push our employees into generating more sales. This is part of the problem when you have directors who see themselves as insulated from day to day challenges. I accept that there's a need for a long term vision, but if someone isn't prepared to understand the details of what's blocking it, they'll not be in a place to advise on how to fix it, and if they're relying on other people to fix those organisational issues, what's the point of having directors at all? |
|
|
There isn't any. Why do you think small groups of computer programmers and a handful of venture capitalists are like a wrecking ball to so many different industries.
In the 20th century we got used to the idea of managerial capitalism. Now in the 21st we're seeing that unless you're an Elon Musk level manager, capable of both understanding fine detail plus having comprehension of the big picture, you're surplus to requirements. You'll be competing against managers who are also geeks as well aka the real Silicon Valley advantage.
If your manager thinks 'the market should decide' they ought to step down unless they mass produce widgets in a B2B context. Their entire job is central coordination. In the 18th/19th centuries the manager of a factory would have understood the functions of every bit of machinery they acquired.