It feels so obvious to me that the CEO of such a high-profile org should at the very least quickly check public-facing social media posts against someone sensible, if not laundering them all through the experts at their org. But somehow they keep making these mistakes over and over again.
I think that was the point of the parents "public figures" comment
These CEOs aren't doing anything different in these situations - they're being themselves and doing what they did to get their position. Other people generally don't call them out on their BS because it's an uphill battle fighting overtly charismatic people, and it's much easier to accept their flaws for the benefit of riding their coattails to the top
This is why they can't differentiate between upsides/downsides - people let them get away with things that other people can't, and to them it is all the same
This is not borne out by historical events.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_You%27ve_Been_Publicly_Sham...
Quoting 2Pac lyrics is just comical. Even more out of touch than Ben Horowitz (of Andreessen Horowitz) starting every chapter of his ultra-corporate startup book with Jay-Z lyrics.
(with no apology and copious reference of Arkell v. Pressdram to Mr. Andreessen)
Note that I say "idiotic comments", not outright " F U and die" comments as is the case here.
It's telling executives would think people would just ask tough questions on demand. It of course costs the CEO nothing to provide everyone else at the company tough questions / feedback, employees though need to consider their words carefully depending on who at a company is listening as there can be real consequences.
It's one of those things that I'm sure seems like it makes the executive look "open", but rather it just shows their ignorance / are out of touch with the life of a rando worker.
Not a surprise that kind of unawareness leaks out of the workplace as they operate in a space where they are often relatively free to speak their mind.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/technology/one-family-man...
Sure there are humans that stickerbomb a tie die hatchback or go on Joe Rogan but then you got your human that lives a private life and drives a gray crossover.
I would rather YC leadership kept their political positions to themselves as much as is reasonably possible. It dilutes the value of that bullet point -- I want it to communicate things about my work ethic and competency. I don't want it to imply _anything_ about my political opinions.
I don't have a problem with tech leaders holding political positions, nor do I have a problem with them making personal donations based on those opinions. Quietly.
If that is ever typed seriously I don't want to be in those comments.
Everyone has opinions that would get them cancelled on Twitter. Most of us are sensible enough to keep them to ourselves, or, at least, off Twitter, without even having the responsibility to maintain the image of a business. He has a duty to his employees, his clients, and his investors that goes far beyond the standard duty of "Don't be an asshole on Twitter."
Political hyperbole is also kind of the norm on Twitter (which is one of many reasons I don't spend much time there), so it's entirely possible he thought he was being humorous, and that it was abundantly obvious that he shouldn't be taken literally. Which might even be true. But CEOs are at extra risk of getting taken out of context and willfully misinterpreted, and they should fucking Tweet like it.
I disagree with what he said, but I'm more insulted that the people are allowed such insane levels of power and responsibility and are given such disproportionate compensation have the common sense of a middle-schooler.
Give me DOOM lyrics or GTFO.
Agreed
> who happen to be overtly charismatic to a fault.
Not so much.
> they're being themselves and doing what they did to get their position.
yes, there is a way of talking in industry that allows people to rise through the ranks. Its very rare that you get to the top by being an odious prick all the time.
However, people on the inside don't tend call out CEOs, because they need something from them. If you are frank with your CEO and they don't like it, you're out on your arse, to be replaced by a yes man. (not always, but its surprisingly common)
It is very easy to become a CEO as a normal person, only to develop into an horrid shit later.
Like, say, death threats?
I'd be willing to bet that a lot of humans go their entire lives without joking about death threats.
I'm sorry, if you are like "I'm glad they gave me the money and the label" and can't take it when someone associated makes an embarassing human moment, you are just trying to have your cake and eat it too. Do better.
Really? Because they are all about upsides.
"My initiatives led to 1,500,000 new bank accounts opened in the last 3 quarters!"
Vs.
"I didn't have any knowledge that the 1,450,000 new bank accounts were opened fraudulently!"
Doesn't it just communicate that you got in to YC?
YC can have political opinions, but they should acknowledge the opportunity cost of putting their politics before their community. Behavior like the one linked in the OP is incredibly petty and probably should make the associated parties feel bad about working with that kind of person. Lord knows I feel ashamed to be an HN user today.
Could probably fix that quote by adding "believe they are."
>who happen to believe they are overtly charismatic to a fault.
Free speech has consequences. And speech that has unhinged threats (even if it has a disclaimer that it's not) has potential consequences with law enforcement.
I don't think it's out of line for someone who's investing their time and effort into an organization to be critical of leadership.
It's quite common for them to appear overtly charismatic at first glance. Narcissism and psychopathy are extremely common at that level. It's why you should always be weary of CEOs who seem a little bit too happy to have a very high-profile public presence.
Hell, we recently elected a President almost entirely because he was the biggest asshole in the room.
Speak for yourself. This seems to be mostly an American problem.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RFZJKA736UBAH/ref...
I'll reserve judgement until we see how a16z's "digital asset class" thing pans out. Some might even say blockchains are eating the world.
As for companies, judge their actions, not their words.
I'd argue you have reached the limits of free speach the moment there are consequences for just the speech.
Then they dropped voting when the questions got too real.
Then they lit up the staff by saying, “If you don’t like being here, then leave!”
Then they stopped taking questions and went back to fireside chat monologs that offered no real information.
One of the many Dilbertian experiences in my career.
I once accused a VP of creating an environment of “opaque transparency” in a large staff meeting… nobody laughed, though I got lots of private kudos after the meeting.
Much of the corporate world is smoke and mirrors. That’s the nature of the game unfortunately.
Boris Johnson.
Nowadays? It goes back millennia.
> Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you're going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.
I guess if you want to argue about the true meaning of "something like that" or "to use medical doctors with" injecting disinfectant.
Nothing says innovative leader like taking something a bunch of other people were already doing and doing it the same with added sociopathy on top.