upvote
I think this is broadly true of leaders including lesser ones. It even seems true of roles like product manager.

The vast majority of projects seem to not meet their stated goals or KPIs or mission, be late, not follow remotely the planned path, etc. Whether blame falls on poor execution, poor planning, or overpromsing, those are precisely the things that chosen leaders are supposed to have been chosen to avoid—and what they would in theory fail downwards for. Unpredictable things do happen, but the regularity of these outcomes for projects (and products as a whole) means we're systematically choosing the wrong ones, there aren't enough capable ones (period), and/or that we shouldn't be org'd to need them in the first place. The last one is simply saying that if the environment is unpredictable enough that you can't plan well, then let's not spend time and money on planning. That in itself axes large chunks of the things product leaders do before work starts.

It makes iterating a more likely plan, but most teams and workstreams don't iterate too much. The iterating that sometimes is done is typically downstream of the plan, strategy, architecture that leadership leadershipped. They might do better without all the planning and overpromised timelines, which gut iterating. Iteration is only sort of a strategy anyhow (depends on what layer we're talking about when we say strategy). Iteration is what hedges a lack of vision.

reply
New devs learn quickly that when the TPM over promises it's the devs job to take the fall when delivery is late, or kill themselves so the TPM can take credit.
reply
Some would call this a valuable skill.
reply
100% this. The CEO at my last company squandered hundreds of millions of investor funds, and now he's the CEO at another company taking on hundreds of millions in debt.

Another example: current CEO of Cerebras, is an SEC felon from a prior company (for cooking the books), and now he's CEO of a public company.

reply
Feldman "failing up" is being the CEO of a public company he _founded_.

"failed up" is currently defined as founding a company that goes public and being its CEO. I'd love to know what success is.

reply
In my eyes, success is a profitable company.
reply
yea this isn't "and another example just off the top of my head" - this guy co-founded seamicro then cerebras both pretty badass companies, he was a vp of marketing not ceo when the sec sued not just him but the entire executive team. trudging up 20 year old nonsense to try and punch a guy who legit deserves his success is bullshit
reply
Cerebras is an 11 year old unprofitable company with a stock that is down 30% since the IPO, in the hottest market ever.

They've pivoted many times over the years trying to make "wafer scale" work in a variety of use cases, and they still haven't gotten it right.

By the way, the CTO is dumping stock left and right and the stock is down nearly 5% today alone...

https://www.marketbeat.com/instant-alerts/insider-cerebras-s...

reply
that's an automatic, prenegotiated sell off - calling that dumping is worse than calling the ceo a felon (at least one is technically true). are any of the big ai companies actually profitable? how has cerebras not gotten their chip right? they're the only company shipping wafer scale inference hardware, and they're shipping to the largest labs in the world. and it works - I use cerebras.ai the token rate is amazing
reply
Sell offs don't have to happen, and $25m isn't some small amount of money.

> how has cerebras not gotten their chip right?

It doesn't scale, and won't ever be profitable. They pivoted to inference, which has the unfortunate (for them) side effect of also requiring a boat load of memory. This is why they just partnered with AMD to offload onto their chips.

> I use cerebras.ai the token rate is amazing

Ah, investor. Explains your responses.

reply
Not supporting GPs argument, but one can appreciate the t/s on cerebras.ai without being an investor.
reply
deleted
reply
Lol! Wat? Got more details?(On cerebras)
reply
reply
Thanks! Always amazing that people don't know this stuff. Oh and the current CFO of Cerebras was the CFO of Bird, another giant failure.
reply
I am sure this poignantly describes some CEOs, but my guess is this is probably empirically false on average.

(I'd ask some LLM to research it but the people who would be doubtful it's false significantly overlap with the people who distrust LLMs, so I'll just leave this as a random guess and nothing more.)

reply
Feels like survivorship bias to me. CEO's fail up, except those that fail down, and the latter group aren't CEO's anymore, so they're less likely to show up in a sample.
reply
It might be, but ... there are a lot of us who've seen this happen time and time again.

You have some startup, the founder is either young or doesn't want to do the CEO stuff. Things kind of eek along until the founder either steps aside or is removed by the board because a) it's time for a "grown-up" CEO; b) the CEO needs real sales experience; c) the founder overpromised and under-delivered; d) board/VC politics make it helpful to install a buddy as CEO; e) etc.

Then the CEO clock starts, typically they have 18 months to get lucky and hit their metrics. They do a lot of glad-handing. They hire "their team" of sales/marketing/etc people. They spend A LOT of money. And I mean A LOT. They talk about OKRs or SMRTs and KPIs. Out of nowhere a small army of project managers show up and try to tell you how to do your job and why you can't just talk to the <thing X> team directly but have to go through them for "efficiency" and "visibility."

In 3-6 months, senior engineering and R&D staff starts to leave. Whatever culture you had slips away. HR has "culture" meetings to "find the right company culture."

Sales/product can't sell and points the finger at R&D, maybe even for the right reasons. You OKR/KPI harder, but it doesn't matter because nothing addresses whatever the underlying problem is. Multiple senior people have pointed loudly to the problem and are ignored; they're often not managers so it's unclear if they were even heard.

At some point there are one or more rounds of layoffs; sometimes these are announced, sometimes it's just a gradual attrition.

Eventually the CEO clock runs out. They don't get lucky. Nothing they did helped, and some of it hurt. They collect their $1M severance, get to keep their stock, get 9-12 months of health insurance, and move on. In a year or two you hear about them joining a new company as CEO.

In the meantime, you've either moved on or have a new CEO with a new 18-month clock.

reply
deleted
reply