[fsloth]

I think the key claim here is that the manager should have intuitive understanding of the core value adding functions of the company. Not of every function. Being intrinsically motivated about the core value adding process should be considered a superpower.

A stereotypical example: Nokia vs Apple. The Nokia leadership - just before Iphonegeddon hit all the incumbents - really weren't enthusiastic about their technology nor of their products. Where as in Apple the CEO was deeply involved at least in an editorial role and sourced key components himself, like the glass.

I really would love to hear a counterexample where the company with the aloof macroeconomist golfer at the helm beat the company managed by domain afficionados.

I presume it would be in the commodities, but I'm hoping to be surprised.

[Ensorceled]

Example in the same vein, during Iphonegeddon, RIM CEO Jim Balsillie was consumed with buying an NHL team and told RIM's chairman "We'll be fine".