zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. jofla_+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-11-27 11:27:31
Not to minimize your argument because at the core i entirely agree. I have come to understand that most of the reasons for the growth in so many of our beloved tech come from who is at the helm, and more specifically their personality types. Dominantly open-minded and creative people are extremely valuable in so many edge cases but when you have a group dominated by them nothing is stable. The culture has by now stabilized to reward and seek their input so we are all circling the drain waiting for the next best thing.

This is not to say low-creative types make a better company. I've worked with completely different sets and it makes for polar opposites. What I find interesting is that companies/groups tend to cluster leaning towards ones which push for innovation or either shun it, again determined by their core member personality makeup. I wish there was some more tendancy for them to balance out somewhat, but it is definatey a phenomenon.

replies(1): >>everdr+ke
2. everdr+ke[view] [source] 2023-11-27 13:17:04
>>jofla_+(OP)
This is a really great point I hadn’t considered. I also think it’s worth considering software itself as one of the issues here. It’s much easier to continuously modify software than to continuously modify (for example) the supply chain or assembly line for vehicles or other manufactured goods. Of course these supply chains and assembly lines _are_ modified, and may even be helmed by people with a purely growth mindset. But, there are just physical realities slowing some of these more traditional companies down which don’t necessarily affect tech companies. Sometimes it just feels like the tech companies are on fast-forward. They start, they get huge, they get stagnant, and die, all much quicker than an old-fashioned company.
[go to top]