[streblo]

I think this is just a story we (fellow tech-oriented types) like to tell ourselves and repeat, not because it's true, but because it sounds good.

If you look, there are actually plenty of examples of professional management or 'bean counter' types taking over companies and running them more successfully than their former tech-oriented management. And also, plenty of examples of tech-oriented management ruining a good thing. But those kinds of stories don't get very good play on Hacker News.

[tqi]

Its definitely not 100% true in either direction, but I think an "actual connection" to the product is important. Obviously YMMV on what an "actual connection" is, but to me that just means an understanding of what your product is / who your customers are / why your company has been successful in the past that goes beyond case study aphorisms like TAM / YoY Growth / etc. It's important because when things start going poorly, you need to understand where to lean in or divest.

[bombcar]

There are definite cases of corporate looting by the bean counters, but there are certainly cases where a moribund company was saved by the counters of beans (and of course, some where the malaise was so deep nothing could have saved it).

[mixmastamyk]

In general yes, but less likely for highly-technical products. Truth is you need several kinds of competence, they are each "legs under the stool."

[AtlasBarfed]

You mean like Twitter?

(ducks to avoid storm of thrown shoes and knives)

[rendang]

What are some good examples?

[runako]

Judged by earnings and general business success (not "do tech people like what they are doing?"):

- Steve Ballmer @ Microsoft

- Tim Cook @ Apple

- Sundar Pichai @ Google (MechE by education)

- Elon Musk @ Tesla (he is not an auto engineer, so functions as the monied management)

There are a lot more examples out there. However, recent vintages of tech unicorns have been slower to replace founders in part due to dual-class stock structures that can give founders final veto over shareholder actions.

[ww520]

Steve Ballmer work in Microsoft since 1980 years as employee 30th, arguably part of the founding team. I won't say he's a bean counter and couldn't relate to the products.

[runako]

Fair enough, the rest of the comment stands without Ballmer. I chose him because in some ways he was chosen by Gates because he is a bean counter. :-)

[tanseydavid]

"Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!"

[cvalka]

You must be delusional to cite Steve Ballmer. Steve had cost Microsoft a couple of hundreds billions of dollars.

[fidgewidge]

How much of that was just competently running companies that already had massive growth momentum behind them?

[runako]

> just competently running companies

"Just" is doing some heavy lifting there, as if it's "just" easy to run a trillion-dollar company with tens of thousands of employees spread around the globe.

It's tech & tech changes fast. It would be relatively easy to generate a list of companies that had massive growth momentum that then stumbled when handed off to new management. All of those businesses have faced serious challenges (most recently: the pandemic & high inflation), and their managements have performed well nonetheless.

[AdrianB1]

Except for Elon Musk, who is/was extremely passionate about the product, the names on the list are not the peak of these companies. Steve Balmer performed reasonably at Microsoft after Gates, Tim Cook arguably after Steve Jobs and Google is lately a hit or miss on many fronts.

[runako]

> Judged by earnings and general business success

I chose these leaders specifically because their tenures saw their companies earn tons more money than when the founders were in charge.

For example: Jobs was visionary, but Cook's tenure has seen the launch/expansion of the Wearables segment and the Services segment. Those two are "only" a minority of Apple's revenues, but together form a business larger than Comcast or Meta or Target. Tech people won't give Cook credit for that accomplishment, but that's the point of this thread. :-)

[streblo]

One of my favorite examples recently is Frank Slootman (sales/operations/general management background) taking over as CEO for Snowflake, over Bob Muglia (developer/technical product background). The company's market cap is up >10x since Slootman took over.

[hodgesrm]

Slootman is an excellent manager. I suspect he could run just about any type of business.

[letitbeirie]

> running them more successfully

The time scale that success is defined on is important here.

The root of the issue seems to be that manager types don't view profit as the market's reward for making a good product; they view it as the product itself.

If a product's quality is sufficiently high to begin with this can be great.

Once quality dips to the point where it softens demand though, it can be the beginning of the death spiral [0] (tl;dr: when production chases revenue downwards and the company suffocates under its fixed costs), and market perception/demand lags cost-cutting product changes so the causes and effects can be very difficult to link through financials alone.

[0] https://www.accountingcoach.com/blog/what-is-the-death-spira...