The job of people around the CEO is primarily to make decisions. All this huge chain of managers is needed only to aggregate information so that the CEO can make an informed decision. This is how many large companies operate. I would even say that there is a direct correlation between the size of the campaign and the number of monitors at the bottom.
The flip side of sitting behind a huge monitor is that you won’t stay outside with a huge number of your employees if you make the wrong decision. It’s just a different job.
there is a direct correlation between the size of the campaign and the number of monitors at the bottom.
From my limited experience, it’s the size/amount of monitors at the top that correlates with company size, not at the bottom. At my 5-person software company, almost everyone works with multiple screens, except one of the three founders who still works mainly on a laptop display at least
Your description is basically of a “spherical CEO in a vacuum”, ie. the ideal and abstract version of how corporations should operate. It has very little to do with reality
Well, I can only write from my own experience. I’ve worked for several major campaigns in my life. In banks, in telecom operators. And it’s almost always been like this. And where there was none, the campaign collapsed. Not in a moment, of course, because campaigns, like people, do not die instantly, but age and degrade. But as a result, it was.
I’ve been a C-suite executive, and I’ve worked with executives (incl. CEOs) at public companies.
Not only is there often a thermocline of truth that stops “bad” information going up the chain, CEOs more often than not make decisions based on nothing but their own opinions, and they will more than happily discard any information that doesn’t already fit that opinion, and even if negative things do manage to reach them from the other side of the thermocline, they often discount it or explain it away
The job of people around the CEO is primarily to make decisions. All this huge chain of managers is needed only to aggregate information so that the CEO can make an informed decision. This is how many large companies operate. I would even say that there is a direct correlation between the size of the campaign and the number of monitors at the bottom.
The flip side of sitting behind a huge monitor is that you won’t stay outside with a huge number of your employees if you make the wrong decision. It’s just a different job.
From my limited experience, it’s the size/amount of monitors at the top that correlates with company size, not at the bottom. At my 5-person software company, almost everyone works with multiple screens, except one of the three founders who still works mainly on a laptop display at least
Your description is basically of a “spherical CEO in a vacuum”, ie. the ideal and abstract version of how corporations should operate. It has very little to do with reality
Well, I can only write from my own experience. I’ve worked for several major campaigns in my life. In banks, in telecom operators. And it’s almost always been like this. And where there was none, the campaign collapsed. Not in a moment, of course, because campaigns, like people, do not die instantly, but age and degrade. But as a result, it was.
When you say campaign are you meaning company?
Yes. Sorry, I still don’t speak English well, so I use Google Translate.
No worries! I thought I understood, but I just wanted to check.
Have you worked with very many CEOs at SMEs? Based on my experience it seems to match the description, by and large.
I’ve been a C-suite executive, and I’ve worked with executives (incl. CEOs) at public companies.
Not only is there often a thermocline of truth that stops “bad” information going up the chain, CEOs more often than not make decisions based on nothing but their own opinions, and they will more than happily discard any information that doesn’t already fit that opinion, and even if negative things do manage to reach them from the other side of the thermocline, they often discount it or explain it away