----- Original Message ----- From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 10:51 PM Subject: Re: Fox News, we distort, you comply.
> --- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In > regards to CEOs voting republican, perhaps they > > just know where their > > bread is buttered. > > > > I doubt Jack Welch could do my job. > > Your job maybe, but not Eriks or Dans. > > CEOs are not superior versions of mainline humans, > > they are simply > > specialists performing a specific function. > > And outside of their specialty, they are incompetent > > in the same way any > > other human would be. > > > > xponent > > Not Impressed By Elitist Type Arguments Maru > > rob > > It's not really an elitist type argument. I remember > Michael Wilbon writing about Michael Jordan that what > made watching him truly special was that he was better > at what he did than anyone else in the world was at > what they did. I don't know that was really the case > - although given how great Jordan was, I'm not willing > to reject it out of hand. > > What we're talking about here is relative skill level. > The question is, is someone who is good enough to get > to where they are likely to be really, really good at > what they do? Again, look at professional baseball > players. To play in the major leagues you have to be > one of the ~1000 best baseball players _in the world_. > And there are tens of millions of people who have at > least, at some point in their lives, tried to play > baseball. So out of all of those tens of millions of > people, MLB players are in the top _1000_. That's > incredibly good. Now, outside of baseball, are they > likely to be any better at anything (non-athletic) > than you or I? No, of course not. But to be one of > the top, what, one-hundredth of one percent of the > people who engage in an activity - think about how > gifted you have to be to reach that level. On the > whole, I have noticed, people don't appreciate that > sort of skill level outside of their own profession. > They look at baseball players and think that looks > easy. Or see the mistake made by a CEO and think any > idiot would have known not to do that. But I don't > think so - not even close. I don't know that much about CEO's, but I am fairly familiar with the next level down. In the company I worked for, people who got to very high levels of the leadership team were very very good at playing company politics. They were not good at making decision to benefit the company. But, that wasn't critical, because their bonus did not depend on doing well by the shareholders; it depended on how well they played politics. We had a good 'ol boy who based his hole corporate strategy on some "inside information" that he got from a friend. The "inside information" was basically physically impossible, but he made the decisions that helped cut market share from 45% to 28% based on that. Another two fellows I know were corporate VPs of New Technology and were pure BS artists who knew nothing of technology. Its not that I believe that running corporations is easy; its not. Its that I've seen the selection process at large corporations; chatted with folks who are up at that level, and their knowledge and ability doesn't blow me away. It seems that the most important skill is not management, but playing company politics. The obvious exception to this that I've seen are start ups that grow big. I knew the man who invented the MWD industry and he impressed me. The feats of someone like Bill Gates or Sam Walmat also impressed me. But the leadership team at my last company didn't. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
