The article forgot to mention the most important skill required for being a CEO - already knowing members of the elite class.
There is very little chance of the vast majority of people of going from IC or even middle management to CEO, let alone other “elite” titles like VP or Director. These are folks that live in the social sphere of power, not just being effective enough to be promoted to the top in the mythical meritocracy.
An example: Bill Gates didn’t get such a sweet deal with IBM by walking in the door and demonstrating gumption. His mother served on the United Way board with the chair of IBM. Bill Gates came from a wealthy family that already knew the right people.
The elites who could possibly give me a chance as CEO or VP don’t talk to me enough to even know whether I’m qualified and/or if I exist. It’s not like we run into each other at the country club or the marina.
Companies have internal "accelerator" programs that they keep quiet about. In Microsoft it's the High Potential bit and the bench program. Others have very similar ones. If you are in one of those programs doors will be opened for you that aren't available to others.
Usually its your skip level manager that has the authority to recommend you for one of those. If you aren't in one of the programs you probably won't even know they exist.
In the case of Microsoft its a training and mentorship program. Building connections is a goal of the program. Here's probably the most public info you're going to get on it: https://www.bluepointleadership.com/client/microsoft/
Almost every large company will have a program like this but I'm most familiar with Microsoft's.
Start a company. Then you, as the board of directors, can appoint you, as CEO. Sure, knowing the right people helps with the success of your new company, but certainly isn't a prerequisite. Just head down to the marina.
1. No, you don’t require connections to get seed/angel/vc money. 2. But it helps to have them, and anyone can have them. It’s called networking, everyone can do it.
This is definitely not required but can be wildly helpful. This is largely true of any climb. The more people you know who are able to pull you up the faster you go. Easier to go from rich => ultra rich than poverty => ultra rich.
Realistically you can't control something you don't already have. To make up for it, you have to either put in the work or have a long lead time. Usually both becomes the requirement and don't forget to sprinkle in some luck.
The goal isn't to get a magical promotion from IC to VP because some "elite" "gave you a chance." It doesn't work that way. Really you have two options if your goal is to run a large organization:
1) Climb the ladder. IC -> Manager -> Senior Manager -> Director -> VP (precise steps will vary by company). You only have to impress your boss and maybe their boss at each step along the path. You should have plenty of opportunities to do so.
2) Go work for a small company that gets bigger. There are a lot fewer steps to the top at a small company. And then, if it goes well, it will grow under you. The extreme example of this is to found your own company. You'll be the boss from day one. Of course then you'll have to convince other people to come work for you. Which isn't easy.
Neither of these paths have much of anything to do with country clubs or marinas.
I know someone who went to path no. 2. He doesn't have any college degree. He is VP now (started from software engineering). He is super smart though, and been coding since a really young age, and skip college entirely to workforce.
> I'm fairly confident that all three matter more than connections. At least in the tech industry.
Define "tech industry". If you're talking about Post 2000-era founded Silicon Valley companies, then ... maybe. Otherwise, the vast majority of the Informational Technology industry is still dominated by enterprises whose ossified leadership is similar to every other in corporate America.
The specific slice of Silicon Valley companies I mentioned earlier seem to be doing better, they're on the right path. But if you're saying that connections don't matter in the tech industry, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Usually #1 hits a glass ceiling at the Director or VP level. #2 is also risky as the investors often tend to ditch the early leadership, and those folks leave with some equity.
There’s a good reason for this — there’s a point when your ability to perform some functions is less important than political savvy. It’s hard to be a political player without friends. The people who survive in scenario 1 and 2 have the savvy or are good at maintaining control.
The scenario that you’re missing is the tour at a high end consulting firm, followed by senior level appointment and advancement from there. That world is very much shaped limited social networks and mutual self interest. The jobs don’t get posted on LinkedIn.
The political world is very similar, except paying dues in the political machinery substitutes for education, as power is derived a little differently.
#2 is also risky as the investors often tend to ditch the early leadership
Significantly less true now than it used to be. And significantly less common in engineering than in other disciplines. A detailed knowledge of the codebase is an incredibly valuable skill for a technical leader. An outsider will take years (if ever they ever do) to build up the knowledge that someone there from the beginning already has.
I've done exactly what you spell out more than once and have an awesome career. But when it came to the times I was considered for the Big Seat the end-game always ended with someone saying "awesome job building this thing...now we're going to bring in someone way more connected/notable/presentable than you". If you're lucky they don't ask you to resign to make room.
Ya, things definitely get more complicated the closer you get to the top.
It's also important to remember: What Got You Here Won't Get You There[1]. The next job up often isn't "the same job but better" but instead "a whole new job."
The next job up often isn't "the same job but better" but instead "a whole new job."
Very astute. I had a great manager when I moved from single-contributor to team manager who said something just like this...this job is nothing like your old job.
This is well-put although reliance on the word 'elite' may rub the wrong way.
My experience of large corporations is that senior execs spot and groom a few early-career candidates to go through a well-laid path. They are placed in various sides of the business for 12-18 month stints, declare successes, and then compete down the line at the subsidiary Director/VP level for equivalent corporate spots. From there they will compete against one another and executive search for the Corporate Policymaker slots and these then are in consideration for the CEO slot. The culled along the way usually leave the firm.
There are formal mentorship programs of varying quality that will be advertised to recruits and new hires but these are for people destined to top out at the high end of middle manager.
I think it is also true that execs like anyone else in the hiring chain select those that resemble themselves.
Addendum: Just read the Gervais Principle referenced elsewhere. Wow. Killin' me softly with its song! (Not so softly, actually.)
And yet, a lot of young, very idealistic folks will be totally enamored by it and genuinely believe it... makes me sick.
In the absence of anyone to guide them, I am afraid the young will have no way to filter the signal from the noise, to comprehend how the real world works and not get distracted by this sort of nonsense.
While I love this article for what it stands for, it's like school vs the real world.
It quantifies what we... or at least I, personally want in my CEO. Someone who cares, takes responsibility, leads, knows the product, intelligent, listens.
They exist for sure, but they far and few between.
Reality, it appears, the driving north star/metric of CEOs and aspiring ones is making money for the business. If you can consistently do that, you will move up and have the best shot. Any cost - legal edges blur-able.
Sadly, that's not what necessarily makes the best CEOs or even good for the business long term. I think we're seeing this play out with Boeing right now.
I’m curious what other folks on HN find appealing, if anything, about becoming CEO. Personally it seems like a queen honey bee role, which sounds awesome at first but once you get a closer look you see its more like slavery to production, whithering externalities and merciless judgement.
CEOs in general get an unfair share of the money and acclaim. Also you get to be in charge kinda. I mean look at the wework guy as an extreme example - largely trashes the company and walks with $2bn or so.
Starting your argument with "in general" and following up with a self-admittedly extreme example is... not good argumentation. The fact that Softbank threw money away in a rather spectacular fashion doesn't at all speak to whether typical CEO compensation is fair.
40 comments
[ 0.27 ms ] story [ 82.5 ms ] threadThere is very little chance of the vast majority of people of going from IC or even middle management to CEO, let alone other “elite” titles like VP or Director. These are folks that live in the social sphere of power, not just being effective enough to be promoted to the top in the mythical meritocracy.
An example: Bill Gates didn’t get such a sweet deal with IBM by walking in the door and demonstrating gumption. His mother served on the United Way board with the chair of IBM. Bill Gates came from a wealthy family that already knew the right people.
The elites who could possibly give me a chance as CEO or VP don’t talk to me enough to even know whether I’m qualified and/or if I exist. It’s not like we run into each other at the country club or the marina.
Usually its your skip level manager that has the authority to recommend you for one of those. If you aren't in one of the programs you probably won't even know they exist.
Almost every large company will have a program like this but I'm most familiar with Microsoft's.
The _____ matters a lot. You're correct that in most cases extreme success is the accumulation of more than one generation.
Realistically you can't control something you don't already have. To make up for it, you have to either put in the work or have a long lead time. Usually both becomes the requirement and don't forget to sprinkle in some luck.
1) Climb the ladder. IC -> Manager -> Senior Manager -> Director -> VP (precise steps will vary by company). You only have to impress your boss and maybe their boss at each step along the path. You should have plenty of opportunities to do so.
2) Go work for a small company that gets bigger. There are a lot fewer steps to the top at a small company. And then, if it goes well, it will grow under you. The extreme example of this is to found your own company. You'll be the boss from day one. Of course then you'll have to convince other people to come work for you. Which isn't easy.
Neither of these paths have much of anything to do with country clubs or marinas.
I'm fairly confident that all three matter more than connections. At least in the tech industry.
Define "tech industry". If you're talking about Post 2000-era founded Silicon Valley companies, then ... maybe. Otherwise, the vast majority of the Informational Technology industry is still dominated by enterprises whose ossified leadership is similar to every other in corporate America.
The specific slice of Silicon Valley companies I mentioned earlier seem to be doing better, they're on the right path. But if you're saying that connections don't matter in the tech industry, I've got a bridge to sell you.
There’s a good reason for this — there’s a point when your ability to perform some functions is less important than political savvy. It’s hard to be a political player without friends. The people who survive in scenario 1 and 2 have the savvy or are good at maintaining control.
The scenario that you’re missing is the tour at a high end consulting firm, followed by senior level appointment and advancement from there. That world is very much shaped limited social networks and mutual self interest. The jobs don’t get posted on LinkedIn.
The political world is very similar, except paying dues in the political machinery substitutes for education, as power is derived a little differently.
Significantly less true now than it used to be. And significantly less common in engineering than in other disciplines. A detailed knowledge of the codebase is an incredibly valuable skill for a technical leader. An outsider will take years (if ever they ever do) to build up the knowledge that someone there from the beginning already has.
I've done exactly what you spell out more than once and have an awesome career. But when it came to the times I was considered for the Big Seat the end-game always ended with someone saying "awesome job building this thing...now we're going to bring in someone way more connected/notable/presentable than you". If you're lucky they don't ask you to resign to make room.
It's also important to remember: What Got You Here Won't Get You There[1]. The next job up often isn't "the same job but better" but instead "a whole new job."
1. A book title. If it wasn't obvious.
Very astute. I had a great manager when I moved from single-contributor to team manager who said something just like this...this job is nothing like your old job.
I guess the question is also whether you would like to hang out at the country club or the marina.
They're always looking for fresh blood. One option is to be interesting and not a pushover.
My experience of large corporations is that senior execs spot and groom a few early-career candidates to go through a well-laid path. They are placed in various sides of the business for 12-18 month stints, declare successes, and then compete down the line at the subsidiary Director/VP level for equivalent corporate spots. From there they will compete against one another and executive search for the Corporate Policymaker slots and these then are in consideration for the CEO slot. The culled along the way usually leave the firm.
There are formal mentorship programs of varying quality that will be advertised to recruits and new hires but these are for people destined to top out at the high end of middle manager.
I think it is also true that execs like anyone else in the hiring chain select those that resemble themselves.
Addendum: Just read the Gervais Principle referenced elsewhere. Wow. Killin' me softly with its song! (Not so softly, actually.)
What stops you from networking and surrounding yourself with likeminded people or people related to the goals you want to achieve?
We don’t have a cast system in the western world, you can become anything you want, you just need to do the right things to get there.
The gervais principle article is far more helpful.
In the absence of anyone to guide them, I am afraid the young will have no way to filter the signal from the noise, to comprehend how the real world works and not get distracted by this sort of nonsense.
It quantifies what we... or at least I, personally want in my CEO. Someone who cares, takes responsibility, leads, knows the product, intelligent, listens.
They exist for sure, but they far and few between.
Reality, it appears, the driving north star/metric of CEOs and aspiring ones is making money for the business. If you can consistently do that, you will move up and have the best shot. Any cost - legal edges blur-able.
Sadly, that's not what necessarily makes the best CEOs or even good for the business long term. I think we're seeing this play out with Boeing right now.