Hacker News Reader

Boiled down to: nobody ever gets a promotion for maintaining the success of something that's already successful.

Which is a shame, but the corporate game theory optimality of leapfrogging between hot projects has held true at essentially every company I've ever worked for.

View on HN

I think it's more complex than the stewardship problem - that problem, specifically, is internal, and the executives who engage in change for the sake of advancement usually do so knowingly.

I'm talking about something completely different - the executives in this case are not knowing participants, they are in the state of mind to be snowed.

I haven't seen much difference between the two, if I understand what you're differentiating, as the type of executive that tends to project hop doesn't generally care about the underlying project, past its ability to further their own aims.

So whether it's an external acquisition or internal project is somewhat immaterial.

It's the difference between being a knowing and un-knowing participant. Having been quite close to people in this tier, the difference is very significant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com