Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AlterNet)   Sears CEO learns that having Ayn Rand as your business idol works about as well as having Bernie Madoff as your investment idol   (alternet.org) divider line 168
    More: Dumbass, Sears CEO, Ayn Rand, Sears, CEO, Eddie Lampert, ESL Investments, invisible hand, Lord of the Flies  
•       •       •

4492 clicks; posted to Business » on 11 Dec 2013 at 10:13 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



168 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-11 07:53:44 AM  
Shocked, shocked I am. This is the type of CEO person who should be taken out behind the barn and shot for the good of humanity.
 
2013-12-11 07:57:08 AM  
Ayn Rand's unsophisticated economic understanding is not as wrong as the author of this article's.
 
2013-12-11 08:35:35 AM  
I would think that would be obvious  that within a company, like an army it is best to act communally,

That's why you have a CEO or general to make central plans, set goals, and think strategy.  And you don't have your divisions fighting each other.
 
2013-12-11 08:44:03 AM  

EvilEgg: I would think that would be obvious  that within a company, like an army it is best to act communally,

That's why you have a CEO or general to make central plans, set goals, and think strategy.  And you don't have your divisions fighting each other.


Sounds a little too socialist.
 
2013-12-11 08:49:19 AM  

vygramul: Ayn Rand's unsophisticated economic understanding is not as wrong as the author of this article's.


So, what economic understanding did TFA's author actually display, other than mentioning that the S&P index made a higher percentage return than hedge funds, at least according to a Bloomberg article?
 
2013-12-11 09:13:46 AM  
We just bought a new big screen TV after first trying to buy it from Sears. We ordered it online, so far so good, then somebody called to "verify our credit card" and during the course of that exchange, they were attempting to get my wife to reveal the answers to her security questions along with way too much other stuff. We were thinking scam but it turns out this was actually the company Sears had hired to close the deal somehow. They refused to run the card without that info and therefore no purchase. They kept explaining that this was a "big purchase" so they had to verify all this data.

How everybody else runs credit cards must be magic I guess.

The interest in our credit card was all wrong (as our bank affirmed). We went down to the local Sears store but they had no clue. They are completely separated from any online sales and the personnel might as well have been guessing how GM manufactures cars. The wife called back to cancel the purchase and Sears was saying it's already gone through. Checking the credit card online it had not. Another call to the bank determines that amount is "pending" even though they wouldn't run the card.

So anyway, Sears and the idiots they hire work exceptionally hard to prevent you from giving them $800 for a new TV. If that's anything like how they run the rest of the business then I am mystified they are still in business at all.

Epilogue: Ordered online with Best Buy, picked it up in 3 days. No problems.
 
2013-12-11 09:27:00 AM  

EvilEgg: I would think that would be obvious  that within a company, like an army it is best to act communally,

That's why you have a CEO or general to make central plans, set goals, and think strategy.  And you don't have your divisions fighting each other.


Team building and infrastructure are boring. Investors don't want to hear about that sh*t...

And that is part of the problem with the myth of the "investor" being the equal or superior to a manager. "Businessman" is not an all encompassing skill set. There's a reason why there's a CFO and a CEO, and likewise why there is a Chief Information Officer, and a Chief Analytics Officer, they are distinct jobs that are separated. There's a reason why you have plant managers, and human resource directors being different jobs. Ideally, your CEO is letting the COO do the day to day operations, and instead acts by taking the information and data brought in by the other corporate officers, and pulling all the disparate pieces to lead the company. Giving it a vision, mapping out the future of the company by using all the data, and looking beyond just those day to day operations. CEO is a different skill set than Chief Human Resources Officer. It is a different skill set from Chief Design Officer. Ideally, your CEO has experience in the day to day running of the company, because that experience allows him to understand exactly the situation that his company faces, its particular challenges, its workers, its brand, customer base, and what difficulties they may face in the future.

CEOs aren't magical. They aren't bred from unicorn horn dust and fairy tears, springing to life in a flash of light and Polo Red. Simply because someone has a good investment strategy, doesn't mean that they know how to run a company--not even if that company specializes in investments. Someone who only looks at a company from ONLY an investment strategy--especially if that company actually has brick and mortar shops--is missing an important part of understanding that company. Don't get me wrong, there are folks who can bring a new perspective and set of priorities to an ailing firm, but that has to come with an understanding of what made the company in the first place. A CEO has to have an understanding of more than just management theory, but actually understand how the disparate elements of said company fit together. Much like a chef has to understand how disparate ingredients fit together, how courses run into one another, how his line cooks work, how his waitstaff operate, what his clientele are looking for, what his suppliers are providing, and when they have such things available. CEOs have to look at the larger picture, and steer the company through those waters, and if you bring in a CEO who is good at only ONE thing, then you risk exactly this sort of clusterf*ck.
 
2013-12-11 09:43:56 AM  
Ayn Rand?

Geez, I always thought the author that most inspired Sears was Gary Larson.
 
2013-12-11 09:53:43 AM  

hubiestubert: EvilEgg: I would think that would be obvious  that within a company, like an army it is best to act communally,

That's why you have a CEO or general to make central plans, set goals, and think strategy.  And you don't have your divisions fighting each other.

Team building and infrastructure are boring. Investors don't want to hear about that sh*t...

And that is part of the problem with the myth of the "investor" being the equal or superior to a manager. "Businessman" is not an all encompassing skill set. There's a reason why there's a CFO and a CEO, and likewise why there is a Chief Information Officer, and a Chief Analytics Officer, they are distinct jobs that are separated. There's a reason why you have plant managers, and human resource directors being different jobs. Ideally, your CEO is letting the COO do the day to day operations, and instead acts by taking the information and data brought in by the other corporate officers, and pulling all the disparate pieces to lead the company. Giving it a vision, mapping out the future of the company by using all the data, and looking beyond just those day to day operations. CEO is a different skill set than Chief Human Resources Officer. It is a different skill set from Chief Design Officer. Ideally, your CEO has experience in the day to day running of the company, because that experience allows him to understand exactly the situation that his company faces, its particular challenges, its workers, its brand, customer base, and what difficulties they may face in the future.

CEOs aren't magical. They aren't bred from unicorn horn dust and fairy tears, springing to life in a flash of light and Polo Red. Simply because someone has a good investment strategy, doesn't mean that they know how to run a company--not even if that company specializes in investments. Someone who only looks at a company from ONLY an investment strategy--especially if that company actually has brick and mortar shops--is missing an important part o ...


Well, look at Mr. Smarty-Smart here. I bet you even went to college. Using facts and stuff. Are you just trying to make the rest of us feel dumb with your smarty-smart comments?
 
2013-12-11 10:04:27 AM  
Whats Sears been but the "not busy entrance to the mall" for decades. Big landmark, never full of people, ample parking. Sears.
 
2013-12-11 10:05:27 AM  

dr_blasto: vygramul: Ayn Rand's unsophisticated economic understanding is not as wrong as the author of this article's.

So, what economic understanding did TFA's author actually display, other than mentioning that the S&P index made a higher percentage return than hedge funds, at least according to a Bloomberg article?


There's something called a free-market economy. Business schools exist. I'm sure there's a third one.
 
2013-12-11 10:07:23 AM  

hubiestubert: EvilEgg: I would think that would be obvious  that within a company, like an army it is best to act communally,

That's why you have a CEO or general to make central plans, set goals, and think strategy.  And you don't have your divisions fighting each other.

Team building and infrastructure are boring. Investors don't want to hear about that sh*t...

And that is part of the problem with the myth of the "investor" being the equal or superior to a manager. "Businessman" is not an all encompassing skill set. There's a reason why there's a CFO and a CEO, and likewise why there is a Chief Information Officer, and a Chief Analytics Officer, they are distinct jobs that are separated. There's a reason why you have plant managers, and human resource directors being different jobs. Ideally, your CEO is letting the COO do the day to day operations, and instead acts by taking the information and data brought in by the other corporate officers, and pulling all the disparate pieces to lead the company. Giving it a vision, mapping out the future of the company by using all the data, and looking beyond just those day to day operations. CEO is a different skill set than Chief Human Resources Officer. It is a different skill set from Chief Design Officer. Ideally, your CEO has experience in the day to day running of the company, because that experience allows him to understand exactly the situation that his company faces, its particular challenges, its workers, its brand, customer base, and what difficulties they may face in the future.

CEOs aren't magical. They aren't bred from unicorn horn dust and fairy tears, springing to life in a flash of light and Polo Red. Simply because someone has a good investment strategy, doesn't mean that they know how to run a company--not even if that company specializes in investments. Someone who only looks at a company from ONLY an investment strategy--especially if that company actually has brick and mortar shops--is missing an important part o ...


Bullshiat. If you're rich, you've proven you know more than everyone else and if some endeavour fails, it's because of unions, government, or simply bad luck.
 
2013-12-11 10:07:27 AM  

hubiestubert: EvilEgg: I would think that would be obvious  that within a company, like an army it is best to act communally,

That's why you have a CEO or general to make central plans, set goals, and think strategy.  And you don't have your divisions fighting each other.

Team building and infrastructure are boring. Investors don't want to hear about that sh*t...

And that is part of the problem with the myth of the "investor" being the equal or superior to a manager. "Businessman" is not an all encompassing skill set. There's a reason why there's a CFO and a CEO, and likewise why there is a Chief Information Officer, and a Chief Analytics Officer, they are distinct jobs that are separated. There's a reason why you have plant managers, and human resource directors being different jobs. Ideally, your CEO is letting the COO do the day to day operations, and instead acts by taking the information and data brought in by the other corporate officers, and pulling all the disparate pieces to lead the company. Giving it a vision, mapping out the future of the company by using all the data, and looking beyond just those day to day operations. CEO is a different skill set than Chief Human Resources Officer. It is a different skill set from Chief Design Officer. Ideally, your CEO has experience in the day to day running of the company, because that experience allows him to understand exactly the situation that his company faces, its particular challenges, its workers, its brand, customer base, and what difficulties they may face in the future.

CEOs aren't magical. They aren't bred from unicorn horn dust and fairy tears, springing to life in a flash of light and Polo Red. Simply because someone has a good investment strategy, doesn't mean that they know how to run a company--not even if that company specializes in investments. Someone who only looks at a company from ONLY an investment strategy--especially if that company actually has brick and mortar shops--is missing an important part o ...


Been my experience, as one that sits in with or meets CEO, that most of them are where they are today more because of their ability to organize people and convince them that they have the correct ideas for the company.

The ideas themselves are very textbook by now, at least in tech, and follow 20 year or more shopworn strategies.
 
2013-12-11 10:20:30 AM  
Sears was also a victim of unbelievably bad timing. They shut down most of their catalog operations about 10 minutes before online shopping really took off. They would have been in a fantastic position with warehouses and their distribution network and all the other stuff that folks like Amazon are spending tons of money building.
 
2013-12-11 10:26:54 AM  
If you think that sounds batshiat crazy, congratulations. You understand more than most of America's business school graduates.

Is the author under the impression that most companies are run the way this guy ran Sears or that one person is "most of America's business school graduates"? It's one or the other.
 
2013-12-11 10:28:46 AM  
You'll all be sorry when this rationalist superhero GOES GALT!!  Then what retail entities will you invest in?  What will you do without your sporty and attractive Sears Activewear?  Didn't think about that did you?

While we're all out at Galt's Gulch zooming around on our Craftsman riding mowers, you'll be stuck with a Toro.  Didn't think about that did you?
 
2013-12-11 10:31:02 AM  

Generation_D: Been my experience, as one that sits in with or meets CEO, that most of them are where they are today more because of their ability to organize people and convince them that they have the correct ideas for the company.

The ideas themselves are very textbook by now, at least in tech, and follow 20 year or more shopworn strategies.


I was a guest sitting-in on a business strategies class at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business and the professor made an interesting point. When presenting a real-world example of Hudepohl Beer having cash-flow problems, the professor asked for ideas for "low-hanging" fruit to help with revenue. (Dumbest idea: "build another brewery" - not exactly low-hanging fruit.) There were a lot of suggestions, but no one hit on the right one: pull out of the Columbus, OH market. The interesting observation was that these were all top-flight business school students, some of whom have executive experience already, in their last semester, and that a CEO at an executive meeting would be getting all these ideas and most of them were not very good. A good CEO is good at differentiating between a good or bad idea, because they're going to get plenty of bad ones, some of which sound possibly good, as demonstrated by the ideas in the class.

/Biggest surprise: how little math they needed to know to get in
 
2013-12-11 10:32:12 AM  

thurstonxhowell: If you think that sounds batshiat crazy, congratulations. You understand more than most of America's business school graduates.

Is the author under the impression that most companies are run the way this guy ran Sears or that one person is "most of America's business school graduates"? It's one or the other.


The author is clearly someone who is a passionate attacker of what she imagines free market economics to be.
 
2013-12-11 10:38:51 AM  
Eddie Lampert, like all Randians, refused to acknowledge one immutable fact of our universe: an idea has never been worth ANYTHING.

Nobody ever made money by thinking, and people who's only skill is thinking have only made money by taking slices of the work of other people as their ideas are implemented. Which is fine, but Lampert seems to have forgotten to actually have any ideas. His only "skill" has been to manipulate little digital portfolios on a computer screen and he was very good at that, but he made the mistake of thinking that qualified him to do a real job where you actually have to have real skills that lead to real production.

Funny how Mr. Galt found out the hard way that none of that was true and that, at the end of the day, he's not a useful person in any way, shape or form.

I'm sure he'll cry into his piles of money over all this, but it's still fun to laugh at him for being such a useless little prick.
 
2013-12-11 10:38:51 AM  
Her philosophy is bullshiat. von Mises, Rothbard et al,  they're all fascist sympathizers and racists.  Praxeology is a joke.  The Austrian school is a joke.  Supply side economics does not work and it never has.  Welcome to reality asshole.
 
2013-12-11 10:41:18 AM  

Generation_D: Been my experience, as one that sits in with or meets CEO, that most of them are where they are today more because of their ability to organize people and convince them that they have the correct ideas for the company.

The ideas themselves are very textbook by now, at least in tech, and follow 20 year or more shopworn strategies.


Which is why exploding CEO compensation packages rob investors, and short change companies in the long run. Great for the folks who are getting a cut, and can pat each other on the back, and for honorary positions on a board or two, and a reach around, but not really about increasing investor return. The American model for business, especially in the last 40 years or so, have been a fairly elaborate con to get money in the pocket of folks who already have a fair amount...
 
2013-12-11 10:44:07 AM  

FarkedOver: Her philosophy is bullshiat. von Mises, Rothbard et al,  they're all fascist sympathizers and racists.  Praxeology is a joke.  The Austrian school is a joke.  Supply side economics does not work and it never has.  Welcome to reality asshole.


I'm sure supply-side economics has things with which you agree.
 
2013-12-11 10:47:57 AM  

Ricardo Klement: FarkedOver: Her philosophy is bullshiat. von Mises, Rothbard et al,  they're all fascist sympathizers and racists.  Praxeology is a joke.  The Austrian school is a joke.  Supply side economics does not work and it never has.  Welcome to reality asshole.

I'm sure supply-side economics has things with which you agree.


Depends.  If the dominant class in society is no longer the capitalist class I'm all for it.
 
2013-12-11 10:49:42 AM  
It worked out really well for Bernie, at least for a little while.


clancifer: Sounds a little too socialist.


Do you have any idea what socialism is? One person handing down orders for the group to obey? You call this "too socialist"?!
 
2013-12-11 10:50:41 AM  

No Gods or Kings, only Sales

 
2013-12-11 10:51:19 AM  

hubiestubert: Generation_D: Been my experience, as one that sits in with or meets CEO, that most of them are where they are today more because of their ability to organize people and convince them that they have the correct ideas for the company.

The ideas themselves are very textbook by now, at least in tech, and follow 20 year or more shopworn strategies.

Which is why exploding CEO compensation packages rob investors, and short change companies in the long run. Great for the folks who are getting a cut, and can pat each other on the back, and for honorary positions on a board or two, and a reach around, but not really about increasing investor return. The American model for business, especially in the last 40 years or so, have been a fairly elaborate con to get money in the pocket of folks who already have a fair amount...


Maximizing shareholder value has destroyed more companies than any other phrase.
 
2013-12-11 10:51:39 AM  

FarkedOver: Ricardo Klement: FarkedOver: Her philosophy is bullshiat. von Mises, Rothbard et al,  they're all fascist sympathizers and racists.  Praxeology is a joke.  The Austrian school is a joke.  Supply side economics does not work and it never has.  Welcome to reality asshole.

I'm sure supply-side economics has things with which you agree.

Depends.  If the dominant class in society is no longer the capitalist class I'm all for it.


The number one thing to remember is that most expressions of economics in the public sphere are about as accurate as most expressions regarding religion. An awful lot of people say things without actually knowing anything about it - and I'm talking about proponents here, not opponents. Someone who expresses a love of supply-side economics who wants to cut education or R&D spending are either not actually supply-side economists, or they just want to see the world burn.

/There's also a difference between the right economic answer and the right moral answer
 
2013-12-11 10:51:39 AM  
Non-sociopaths need delusion to keep their conscience at bay. Rand was happy to provide that delusion.

Sociopaths just don't give a fark and never will. They tend to thrive in both executive management and prisons.
 
2013-12-11 10:51:48 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Do you have any idea what socialism is? One person handing down orders for the group to obey? You call this "too socialist"?!


Most people think that socialism is public schools, single-payer healthcare or Sweden....
 
2013-12-11 10:53:06 AM  

namatad: hubiestubert: Generation_D: Been my experience, as one that sits in with or meets CEO, that most of them are where they are today more because of their ability to organize people and convince them that they have the correct ideas for the company.

The ideas themselves are very textbook by now, at least in tech, and follow 20 year or more shopworn strategies.

Which is why exploding CEO compensation packages rob investors, and short change companies in the long run. Great for the folks who are getting a cut, and can pat each other on the back, and for honorary positions on a board or two, and a reach around, but not really about increasing investor return. The American model for business, especially in the last 40 years or so, have been a fairly elaborate con to get money in the pocket of folks who already have a fair amount...

Maximizing shareholder value has destroyed more companies than any other phrase.


"Maximizing Shareholder Value" is frequently used in the same way as "for the people" is used in communist systems.
 
2013-12-11 10:54:24 AM  
There was a waaaay better article on Fark a while back about this. Business Week or Forbes, I think? It went into depth without the Alternet spin on how Lambert basically killed the company with his focus on technology, a specific to Sears Social Network customers could sign up for, killing K-Mart slowly, and the whole "divide and let them fight" strategy in regards to the different divisions.

You don't have to put any political ideology into this. The dumbass straight up ruined the company with his stupid Randriod bullcrap.
 
2013-12-11 10:58:21 AM  

trotsky: There was a waaaay better article on Fark a while back about this. Business Week or Forbes, I think? It went into depth without the Alternet spin on how Lambert basically killed the company with his focus on technology, a specific to Sears Social Network customers could sign up for, killing K-Mart slowly, and the whole "divide and let them fight" strategy in regards to the different divisions.

You don't have to put any political ideology into this. The dumbass straight up ruined the company with his stupid Randriod bullcrap.


The guy was so enamored with the 50% who come out on top he forgot how the other 50% are still part of the company, and no company can perform with only 50% "winning".
 
2013-12-11 11:00:17 AM  

skozlaw: Eddie Lampert, like all Randians, refused to acknowledge one immutable fact of our universe: an idea has never been worth ANYTHING.

Nobody ever made money by thinking, and people who's only skill is thinking have only made money by taking slices of the work of other people as their ideas are implemented. Which is fine, but Lampert seems to have forgotten to actually have any ideas. His only "skill" has been to manipulate little digital portfolios on a computer screen and he was very good at that, but he made the mistake of thinking that qualified him to do a real job where you actually have to have real skills that lead to real production.

Funny how Mr. Galt found out the hard way that none of that was true and that, at the end of the day, he's not a useful person in any way, shape or form.

I'm sure he'll cry into his piles of money over all this, but it's still fun to laugh at him for being such a useless little prick.


Cue Bob:

www.angryflower.com
 Ayn Rand never got over the dirty Commies taking her folks' stuff, and in fairness, she pretty much only produced a few books, and some hearty indignation, and pretty much sponged off folks for the entirety of her natural days, massaging the egos of folks who would give her stuff so that she didn't have to do any of that icky labor that she was so fond of expounding upon that OTHERS should be doing, and ignoring the fact that she herself was a parasite on the backs of the privileged class who she gave justifications for their being dickbags.

Folks want to look to a grand investor who actually DID something with his wealth, one might look to someone like Warren Buffett, who came up Old Skool, from firms that insisted on a margin of safety. His story isn't as flashy, or glamorous, but it worked a damn sight better than a lot of others' who have come and gone...
 
2013-12-11 11:01:17 AM  
2 Sears annoyances:

1.  Bought wife a gift and like an idiot gave them our phone number.  E-Receipt automatically sent to wife's account.

2.  Bought clothes for new baby and wanted a gift receipt.  A gift receipt was printed for each individual item along with coupons and surveys.  Three trees died that day.
 
2013-12-11 11:04:24 AM  

FarkedOver: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Do you have any idea what socialism is? One person handing down orders for the group to obey? You call this "too socialist"?!

Most people think that socialism is public schools, single-payer healthcare or Sweden....


Well you could make an argument that the public school and single payer are socialistic ideas. But a system that can be the very definition of fascism (which is the exact opposite of socialism) and this person thinks it's too socialist?!?

that's just too much
 
2013-12-11 11:07:52 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Well you could make an argument that the public school and single payer are socialistic ideas. But a system that can be the very definition of fascism (which is the exact opposite of socialism) and this person thinks it's too socialist?!?

that's just too much


I think people stop reading at the "worker control of industry" part of socialism and they go on to claim they are socialists because they support reform of a capitalist economy.  Then when confronted about what socialism really is they're typically all like: "Oh... yeah, I'm just a liberal then."
 
2013-12-11 11:18:45 AM  
Nokia did the same thing and self destructed.  You would think that after a few failed attempts that these supergeniuses would catch on.
 
2013-12-11 11:21:04 AM  

FarkedOver: Her philosophy is bullshiat. von Mises, Rothbard et al,  they're all fascist sympathizers and racists.  Praxeology is a joke.  The Austrian school is a joke.  Supply side economics does not work and it never has.  Welcome to reality asshole.


i54.tinypic.com
 
2013-12-11 11:23:42 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Nokia did the same thing and self destructed.  You would think that after a few failed attempts that these self-described supergeniuses would catch on.


There's the problem right there. These people are delusional asshats.
 
2013-12-11 11:26:42 AM  

skozlaw: Eddie Lampert, like all Randians, refused to acknowledge one immutable fact of our universe: an idea has never been worth ANYTHING.

Nobody ever made money by thinking, and people who's only skill is thinking have only made money by taking slices of the work of other people as their ideas are implemented. Which is fine, but Lampert seems to have forgotten to actually have any ideas. His only "skill" has been to manipulate little digital portfolios on a computer screen and he was very good at that, but he made the mistake of thinking that qualified him to do a real job where you actually have to have real skills that lead to real production.

Funny how Mr. Galt found out the hard way that none of that was true and that, at the end of the day, he's not a useful person in any way, shape or form.

I'm sure he'll cry into his piles of money over all this, but it's still fun to laugh at him for being such a useless little prick.


So, scientists and researchers are useless?
 
2013-12-11 11:28:34 AM  
The best business leaders I've ever met had three things in common:

1. Presence - whatever it is, when they talk, people listen.
2. They realize they don't know everything, so they hire the right people and allow them to run whatever they've been hired to do. A surprising number of managers do not grasp this concept.
3. They know how to ask questions. Even though they aren't experts at every facet of their business, they know how to quickly get the relevant information they need to make decisions.
 
2013-12-11 11:28:59 AM  

skozlaw: I'm sure he'll cry into his piles of money over all this, but it's still fun to laugh at him for being such a useless little prick.


I think Big Bill Haywood said it best: "If one man has a dollar he didn't work for, some other man worked for a dollar he didn't get."

Seize his money.  It belongs to the workers.
 
2013-12-11 11:34:08 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: It worked out really well for Bernie, at least for a little while.


clancifer: Sounds a little too socialist.

Do you have any idea what socialism is? One person handing down orders for the group to obey? You call this "too socialist"?!


I think clancifer was being sarcastic
 
2013-12-11 11:36:13 AM  

Orgasmatron138: The best business leaders I've ever met had three things in common:

1. Presence - whatever it is, when they talk, people listen.
2. They realize they don't know everything, so they hire the right people and allow them to run whatever they've been hired to do. A surprising number of managers do not grasp this concept.
3. They know how to ask questions. Even though they aren't experts at every facet of their business, they know how to quickly get the relevant information they need to make decisions.


So, what you're saying, that I just can't use the "philosophy" of a shiatty novel to run a company and act like Dr-fricking-Evil by only appearing on a giant screen and telling each of the department managers that they're in a free market and need to compete despite the fact they're all in the same company?

You're talking about socialism or Communism or something.
 
2013-12-11 11:41:22 AM  

trotsky: There was a waaaay better article on Fark a while back about this. Business Week or Forbes, I think? It went into depth without the Alternet spin on how Lambert basically killed the company with his focus on technology, a specific to Sears Social Network customers could sign up for, killing K-Mart slowly, and the whole "divide and let them fight" strategy in regards to the different divisions.

You don't have to put any political ideology into this. The dumbass straight up ruined the company with his stupid Randriod bullcrap.


It only appears to be laden with political ideology because the facts of Lambert's performance directly contradict the political/economic narrative one party has sold us as gospel for the past 30+ years.  You don't have to be on anyone's "side" to call someone out for their bullshiat and the larger web of bullshiat they've been feeding into.

/I will grant that AlterNet is a progressive website; if the author of TFA has been dishonest somewhere, point it out.  We mock sites like WND and Deadbart because their authors are nearly always dishonest, not because the site chooses to promote an ideology.
 
2013-12-11 11:41:39 AM  

vygramul: Generation_D: Been my experience, as one that sits in with or meets CEO, that most of them are where they are today more because of their ability to organize people and convince them that they have the correct ideas for the company.

The ideas themselves are very textbook by now, at least in tech, and follow 20 year or more shopworn strategies.

I was a guest sitting-in on a business strategies class at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business and the professor made an interesting point. When presenting a real-world example of Hudepohl Beer having cash-flow problems, the professor asked for ideas for "low-hanging" fruit to help with revenue. (Dumbest idea: "build another brewery" - not exactly low-hanging fruit.) There were a lot of suggestions, but no one hit on the right one: pull out of the Columbus, OH market. The interesting observation was that these were all top-flight business school students, some of whom have executive experience already, in their last semester, and that a CEO at an executive meeting would be getting all these ideas and most of them were not very good. A good CEO is good at differentiating between a good or bad idea, because they're going to get plenty of bad ones, some of which sound possibly good, as demonstrated by the ideas in the class.

/Biggest surprise: how little math they needed to know to get in


I went to business school, so I'm really getting a kick out of this reply.

Re: math - I did far more math with letters in grad school than I expected, especially given what was tested on the GMAT. Those were fun times. It seemed like some of my classmates *really* struggled with it, though.

It seems like there is a mismatch with math ability required to get in, and math ability required to get out.
 
2013-12-11 11:44:41 AM  

namatad: hubiestubert: Generation_D: ........

Maximizing shareholder value has destroyed more companies than any other phrase.


s27.postimg.org
 
2013-12-11 11:46:29 AM  

FarkedOver: Marcus Aurelius: Nokia did the same thing and self destructed.  You would think that after a few failed attempts that these self-described supergeniuses would catch on.

There's the problem right there. These people are delusional asshats.


and they were INCREDIBLY successful!! they got paid. period.
their stockholders who got out early got paid.

people who invested with romney LOVED HIM.
people who worked at the companies that he destroyed, well they blamed Obama.
people who lent those companies the money, well they screwed someone else over with the bad debt, mostly the tax payers

we are living in a retarded time, that's for sure
 
2013-12-11 11:49:00 AM  

EvilEgg: I would think that would be obvious  that within a company, like an army it is best to act communally,

That's why you have a CEO or general to make central plans, set goals, and think strategy.  And you don't have your divisions fighting each other.


I always try to lead using the sports coach (high school) motto that my old tennis coach had:

'Everyone earns a spot on the team with effort. The ones that excel have more responsibility. The ones that fail to put in the ongoing effort are removed.'
 
2013-12-11 11:51:21 AM  
Not unlike another leather messiah.
 
Displayed 50 of 168 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report