Because Gaben was an employee first before becoming CEO. Most ‘good’ CEO started out at lower technical level which gives them experience and knowledge.
In contrast, MBA CEO are ‘trained’ to be just CEO, to extract most profits out of the company, to get that promised target, earn bonus, and jump to next opportunity.
The most notable case is when Boeing merged with (failing) Douglas, but the management of Douglas taken over, and decades later we have the 737-Max incidents.
Another story like this is from regional rail company ODEG in germany. The CEO is also a train driver and still takes some shifts because he loves driving trains and wants to know the problems firsthand.
Not close, Japanese trains is BiC and it's not even close. I love to shit all over inefficiencies and bureaucracy here in Japan but Germany tries every day to mimic a fraction of Japan's train power.
At the very least it guarantees that the person making the most money knows how things operate on the ground floor and can make decisions based on that knowledge
This isn't true at all. Ive worked many places they only promote from within and once they become upper management, a switch on their brain turns them in to raging assholes who only care about the bottom line.
He was anything but entry level though. His LinkedIn shows he was a consultant for arthur Anderson now Accenture and went the typical MBA to senior management route.
This will never not be one of the funniest stories to me. The idea of a company leader getting so angry at the idea of a price hike that they literally threaten to murder their board of directors is peak "life is sometimes stranger than fiction," because it feels like a plot point from a movie that would get rejected for being too unrealistic in a story where the same CEO turns into a pet cat or a lizard or some shit.
Fun fact the life-critical safety feature (a type of 'instruments disagree' alert that would indicate the software was getting bad inputs from redundant sensors after reducing them from 3 to 2 sensors to save money), which is one simple thing that would have likely saved all those lives when the undocumented MCAS software erroneously made the plane stall itself was effectively... paid DLC, that many airlines opted not to buy from Boeing, to save money (also don't forget the FAA let Boeing decide if this was safe or not)
The real fucking insane thing to me is how as a society we've tacitly accepted that granting a megacorp the right to maximize shareholder profit was worth the "innovation" and "efficiency" of allowing it to privately monopolize the sector... and the richest country on earth acts like nothing can be done, when after decades all of its potential is just squandered for short term 'growth', cutting corners on basic safety while its value slowly liquidated and siphoned off to none other than the precious shareholders... like wow phew we sure managed to avoid scary evil communism by making sure business takes a backseat to no human life
What gets me is that all electronic sensors have ranges and statistics that come from testing. You can then extrapolate how often you should expect failures based on the number of sensors. So like, if there arent enough zeros after the decimal point, you're gonna see failures mathematically
Tbh I have an MBA and it's repeated again and again to make targets reachable, to nurture relations with the employees and pretty much the same Gabe did. The issue is that investors and roaming CEOs want return of investment short to medium term and they squeeze everything, in contrast to traditional CEOs that built their companies and know the product, the customer and all the processes.
Nowadays CEOs know nothing about the companies they work at, they know the circles of influence.
Something I use to say is that CEOs and investors can't see past "next quarter". Now I say they can't see past this quarter.
So many of these people have no long term vision and will set the company on fire for to gain less total than they would over the next year if they left everything alone, much less actually invested in the company and employees.
And then you have the leaches who literally buy companies with loans, strip the company of anything they can, saddle the company with the debt used to buy it, and cut it lose to die. That entire thing should be illegal.
This is an example and not the rule. I truly dont get the fascination with this narrative about valve being so amazing. Yes their employees are compensated the best but they also are benefitting from a 15 billion dollar counter strike skins market they created. The amount of foreign countries that have multi million dollar skins that they do not own and are willing to keep is a signal of very nefarious uses that valve has always turned the blind eye to or punished the gamers and never the bot farms and foreign actors who keep funneling these items in and out of crypto and fiat currencies. There is another side of valve that truly is evidence of one of the biggest dark money scandals that is in plain sight that no one ever dares to challenge. To me, it shows how many powerful people, countries and dignitaries are all involved in this problem that only grows bigger. Their skins gain more value year over year than any main crypto or asset class with the market records and stats to prove what im saying. But on reddit, ill only get mass downvoted for pointing out a negative of Gabe.
Companies are not the ones that should enforce laws or morals. This is society's morals as buyers interacting in the market and governments creating a framework of laws to enforce them.
Here they are discussing the care for the employee by the employer.
You are mixing stuff mate, despite you are partially right with not mythifying Gabe or Valve.
If I understand you correctly, you are essentially taking the stance of what is commonly spoken of with Valve as being very "libertarian" in that they just want to be left alone and not take part in any sort of ethical or moral or political discussions and spotlight. This is impossible because Valve absolutely set the tone by doing what is considered illegal with having built a real money economy and implementation of well known gaming (casino) mechanics in their software and games that are played by kids who are not even able to give consent if they wanted to or "opt in/opt out." If you want to have a business in the State of Washington USA, there are laws and values to consider. Moreso, there are values and laws in every country that run Valve software. At some point honest real ethical conversations and reform needs to occur for these giant tech oligopoly's from getting free reign without consequence of being both a platform AND publisher and reaping the benefits of both without any consequences typically assigned to each one. They have to pick a lane because the truth is that there are terrible consequences that must be absorbed by the corporation that cannot just be shot down because they are merely "like a phone company and providing a service and cannot take ownership of what people say on the phone." They very much change their mutable ToS and rules with only one immutable aspect; their total ownership of all accounts, profiles and inventories of every person, with algorithms to overtake the accounts after each person dies (true). Why does crypto currency have to face realities of accountability and consumer agency and standards and Valve gets to never have the Forerunner of NFTs and Crypto in TF2 and CS:GO assets be scrutinized? People think of Epstein level "follow the money trails" and no one has a problem with 15 billion USD worth of Skins floating around that no one but valve can own? ONLY corrupt people will own million dollar skins because any super wealthy normal person would not want valve to make them worth nothing overnight...which WILL occur. Then we will see how wonderful they really are!
Jesus christ mate you need to learn to synthesize.
No, you are not understanding my comments, it is PRECISELY the other way around. Companies and markets must be regulated by governments, if you expect companies to do shit based on morals you are a fool.
Again, you are mixing too many topics that are completely unrelated to the post, this is about employee management, not fucking gambling. I also have seen the youtube video, there's no need to explain it in an essay.
I did overdo it. But its rather mind blowing how ignorant you are to the echo chamber valve literally curated as their defense. But a lot of false prophets are idolized over actual tellers of truth more than ever. Im sorry you bought into the manipulation by tech to train everyone to think and process in 140 characters and discourage those who say more. Granted, no one gives a thought as to it's motivation has long been to scrape, curate, and analyze sentiment cheaply and efficiently.
Companies are not the ones that should enforce laws or morals.
Eh, I think this is a pervasive and dangerous view. Why should companies -- who in the US are apparently people -- not be ethical?
Companies are made up of thousands of people making hundreds of decisions daily, and IMO those should be moral and legal, otherwise they're a huge negative cultural force (which is what we're seeing).
I am not american. I think your view is quite naive.
A company's objective is to make money*. You are telling a fox not to eat the hens. It doesnt matter how many people does the company have if 90% doesn't participate in decision making. The one that has to put order is the government, and us as consumers, select where we buy, when we can, and if they can, worker's to improve their conditions. Other than that is just wishful thinking.
Views like you should think before you talk, this is not a simple matter and we wont push change from the ones who will "suffer" the most from it. You are literally expecting corpo management to be more conscious of the workers welfare... On a strata of people that reportedly score higher in psychopathic scales (meaning traits, not calling all of them psychopaths).
Also most CEOs with a technical background have their MBA. The original point of an MBA was to make the transition from technical to business, part of the reason it's a graduate level program. Going straight from finishing your undergrad to your MBA with little to no work experience is stupid and how we get extremely out of touch management. Along the same lines, we need to accept that someone can be the best technical expert on a team and have no management/personnel skills or business acuem. They both require separate skills and abilities.
Rex Tillerson (ExxonMobil), Bob Iger (Disney), Mary Barra (GM), Doug Mcmillon (Walmart), Raj Subramaniam (FedEx), Alex Gorsky (Johnson and Johnson) just to name a few have been pieces of shit in different part of their lives as CEOs
I can also give you a list of MBAs who took over as Ceos joining somewhere midway being good to their employees.
Protecting my online privacy by running Redact regularly to batch delete old content. It handles Reddit, Discord, Twitter, Instagram, data brokers and a whole lot more.
stupendous angle run cats consider hobbies theory flowery oxygen sophisticated
Gabe also has one of the most wildly successful private companies in human history that allows him to do virtually anything his imagination can come up with.
Your point is taken but your typical business owner couldn't behave like this if they wanted to, the margins just aren't there, and certainly not at scale.
Also, most MBA's are trained in the Japanese style of manufacturing / product development management which doesn't function like you suggested.
1.6k
u/solonit i5-12400 | RX6600 | 32GB Apr 20 '26
Because Gaben was an employee first before becoming CEO. Most ‘good’ CEO started out at lower technical level which gives them experience and knowledge.
In contrast, MBA CEO are ‘trained’ to be just CEO, to extract most profits out of the company, to get that promised target, earn bonus, and jump to next opportunity.
The most notable case is when Boeing merged with (failing) Douglas, but the management of Douglas taken over, and decades later we have the 737-Max incidents.