It's a bit sad how you often have to choose between actually making useful things and being paid a lot of money.
I'd call him a douche, but this is a clear case of don't hate the player, hate the game.
I'd call him a douche, but this is a clear case of don't hate the player, hate the game.
- " Be flagrant in your pursuit of the powerful and the soon-to-be-powerful, and when you have their attention, praise them to the skies"
- " Discover similar interests or experiences." he did that
- "you need to work hard at networking" he did that, he put an incredible amount of effort at networking after hours, managing events, organizing dinners and barbecues, etc...
He was a bit of a douche, mostly by shirking low-visibility projects and getting disproportionate amounts of credit - he didn't shirk "hard" projects per se, but he'd only take them if they were very high visibility, and he'd priorize small but visible over obscure but necessary work.
He was also very good at getting credit without being obvious about getting other people's credit.
However, he did put in the hours, and he is a very good motivator and very charismatic. He was just very good at playing the game.
That kind of skills are pretty good for a CEO, I'll give you that.
But I've seen another CEO at work with the same general style (oodles of charisma, very strong networker, no studies or technical background) and he really messes up technical and financial decisions, he basically has to blindly believe whatever his CFO or CIO say (and the CIO messed up pretty often, the CFO seems pretty solid OTOH).
An actual example: he spent an entire meeting speaking about returns on "bonuses", buying "bonuses", etc.. when he meant "bonds" (he was blindly parroting what the CFO told him, only he messed up).
I implied no such thing. I'm making a generalization. Your statements so far consist of "Yes, but what if he's an irredeemable sociopath? It's better to have a non-sociopath who doesn't understand software than a sociopath who does." I agree with that, but those aren't the only two options on the table and I refuse to believe the worst in somebody I've never met and only know through an anecdote in a hacker news comment.
That example included a detailed description of the ways the person achieved advancement, which fit the characterization I gave.
You are just choosing to ignore that.
Wow, you really don't see it, do you? Huh.
It sounds like he avoided responsibility for anything that might have carried risk
That directly contradicts the description GFisher gave, which was "he didn't shirk "hard" projects per se, but he'd only take them if they were very high visibility". You can't take projects without assuming responsibility and you can only say they carried no risk unless you assume that any and all high visibility tasks were low to no risk. I can speak from experience and say that's very much not true.
It sounds like you've projected onto him your disdain for people that move up ladders instead of make things. And you don't even realize it.
You'll notice I've said absolutely nothing about whether or not he assumed disproportionate amounts of credit. That kind of thing is murky at best. How do you measure credit? Is it something your boss gives you because he likes you or is it something you actively vie for? In some cases it can be one, some the other but in most cases it's a little of both.
You still haven't admitted even a little bias, despite being shown your quite obvious bias in at least one context.
I admit that I am biased against people who assume disproportionate amounts of credit as CEO. I think that is a highly undesirable trait in any kind of manager.
In other words: put too much effort in networking, and hate yourself for being a douche. Put too little effort in networking and hate yourself for missing out on opportunities.
Like most things in life, it's about finding a balance that works for you.
That, at least, seems valuable to me. Turning the complicated into the simple is a valuable skill.
He personally did very little programming or designing himself (I guess that does make him a good manager :) )