Comment by erikb | Hacker News Reader

Comment by erikb | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This looks like a lot of fantasy confidence. For instance, even if you are quite rich, it's unlikely that Colgate-Palmolive would consider you really an "investor". And of course if you write something to the CEO his 10+ PR team will respond to you, maybe even with something that is signed by the CEO. But do you really think the CEO sits down to discuss shower thoughts about product ideas with you?

If you think that would make sense at all, you don't understand how big companies work. The big company is in the later phases of a snowball effect. It's a huge thing that rolls by itself and can't really be redirected, stopped or sped up by anyone. A CEO knows that. He's mostly concerned about internal politics and external representation. He's not really doing anything like develop new products. Companies like Apple that move from one big product line to another are very, very rare.

So, what you get is a PR letter that can contain some insights into their current strategy. But nothing of real value. It's unlikely that such a response contains anything one could learn.

I think you're wrong. Powerful people are very often influenced by chance encounters, by mere happenstance.

I've seen it a hundred times: decisions (or at least discussions) driven by accidental meetings on planes or trains. Something overheard at the pool or in a bar.

It's because these guys know at some level that they're in a closed chamber, away from the reality that underlies their corporate activity and if they think they've suddenly been given an authentic glimpse of something, unmediated by their lieutenants then they find that extremely novel and exciting.

They're just human beings. Often they're very interested in people in general.

> at some level that they're in a closed chamber

I actually think it's the opposite: really successful people get there because they are more vulnerable. At least in my experience, whenever I met someone like this, they always seem way more responsive and open than the usual joe.

Most of them exist in an echo chamber. It’s rare to see them talking to or having time to think outside the current situation. Especially if they are self made (meaning they are leaning closer to the control freak side). It’s rare for regular people like me get a blast of outside perspective on my day to day, let alone an evaluation of wtf I do at work or how I can do it better.

I am inclined to disagree with your vision of the CEO role but I can relate to your thoughts.

You are simultaneously missing the point of the article, and serving the point of the article.

The fact that CEOs have politics and PR to worry about is implied. The purpose of the article is that the majority of the CEOs took the time to respond to a small list of ideas from one of their (likely menial) shareholders. The author is highlighting that this there is a correlation between the type of person willing to do this, and a successful CEO. They are making time for the people below them, given the high level aspect of their day to day. They care about the core of their business and the small people that make the whole.

Its obvious that you would be one of the CEOs who didn't respond, and you will be missing out on that 8.97% ;)

>The big company is in the later phases of a snowball effect. It's a huge thing that rolls by itself and can't really be redirected, stopped or sped up by anyone. A CEO knows that. He's mostly concerned about internal politics and external representation.

This is one of the unspoken truths of business. It's the same whether you're a CEO or a manager.

The best people know this, but never EVER say it. The rest think they have to do more than they actually should; the most obvious manifestation of this is micro-managing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com