[londons_explore]

The original reason was that smart people like career progression. Money alone isn't enough to keep them - they want something good on their business cards. Otherwise some will leave to become CEO of another company.

By making a group of companies, you can have many CEO's, more directors, more VP's, etc. and therefore keep hold of more smart people who are after external recognition more than money.

[mrec]

Careerist people like career progression. I think that's largely orthogonal to smarts or lack thereof.

I doubt Einstein cared very much what was on his business card. Patrick Bateman certainly did.

[mstade]

In the case of the latter the shade and quality of the paper might've been even more important than what's printed on it. ;o)

[HelloMcFly]

I doubt Einstein cared what was on his business card, but I'm sure he cared very much about being in the right career position to do the work that interested him, and to have the ability to influence his work and others.

[wickedwiesel]

I dont want to nitpick, but some of his most influential work - dubbed the "annus mirabilis" papers / "amazing year" [0] - was done while he was an assistant examiner at the patent office in Bern. Definitely not a position he was aiming for, but still, a highly productive time.

- [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers

[mrec]

Sure, but GP's argument was about job titles, not about what work you're doing.

[HelloMcFly]

Typically job titles as noted in that post accompany some varying level of responsibility and leadership. If this is simply about what title is on your card then OK, sure. But in my experience, many (not all) are seeking the autonomy and influence behind those titles. Einstein had titles too, but it was the influence and work behind those titles he wanted. It's the same for many "careerists", a term I do not like.

[mrec]

I think you're losing sight of the original argument I was responding to: that a main reason for spinning off bits of Google as separate Alphabet subsidiaries was to allow job title inflation for the same role.

There's only one CEO per company, so if you want more CEOs you need more companies. Being CEO of Waymo probably isn't that different from being Manager of the Autonomous Cars Division or whatever, but it sounds more impressive.

[magduf]

>There's only one CEO per company,

Usually, but not always. When I was at Intel, they had two CEOs. They called it "two in a box" for some odd reason.

[neuronic]

But you forget that to Patrick Bateman the (so called) greater good and broad knowledge expansion or other humanity-propelling criteria weren't nearly as relevant as the question if Patrick Bateman appeared successful.

The image of Patrick Bateman was more important to Patrick Bateman than Einstein or his accomplishments.

[mrec]

I'm not sure whether I'm missing your point or you're repeating mine. Caring about job titles for their own sake strikes me as narcissistic.

[Gene_Parmesan]

It is, but most people are at least slightly narcissistic. Most people get at least a little bit of validation & happiness from obtaining a "better" job title. Also, it's not really just the plain title itself, but the trust the company has in you that it represents. Being able to say to somebody, "I'm VP of ____" gives you some cachet in today's middle/upper-middle class.

Sure, there are also people who couldn't care less what their title is, but I can't help but feel that most people would find the possibility of a 'better' title at least moderately motivating.

[foobiekr]

Titles are a currency in some parts of society. I am strongly anti-title and also pretty strongly anti-celebrity but I think it’s important to recognize that these things both have value to most of the people around you.

[throwawayhhakdl]

Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein, Senior Executive Patent Clerk

[tomp]

You could easily do that by having sub-companies of Google instead of sub-companies of Alphabet.

[Cthulhu_]

I think the reason they went for this is so that the sub-companies would not be at risk if Google (the search engine / advertising giant) had a problem.

[chisleu]

I think that was the other way around.