undefined | Better HN

0 pointspaulryanrogers4mo ago0 comments

Those of us working from the bottom, looking up, do tend to take the clinical progressive approach. Our focus is on the next ticket.

My theory is that executives must be so focused on the future that they develop a (hopefully) rational FOMO. After all, missing some industry shaking phenomenon could mean death. If that FOMO is justified then they've saved the company. If it's not, then maybe the budget suffers but the company survives. Unless of course they bet too hard on a fad, and the company may go down in flames or be eclipsed by competitors.

Ideally there is a healthy tension between future looking bets and on-the-ground performance of new tools, techniques, etc.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

krackers4mo ago· 2 in thread

>must be so focused on the future

They're focused no the short-term future, not the long-term future. So if everyone else adopts AI but you don't and the stock price suffers because of that (merely because of the "perception" that your company has fallen behind affecting market value), then that is an issue. There's no true long-term planning at play, otherwise you wouldn't have obvious copypcat behavior amongst CEOs such as pandemic overhiring.

charcircuit4mo ago

Every company should have hired over the pandemic due to there being a higher EV than not hiring. It's like if someone offered an opportunity to pay $1000 for a 50% chance to make $8000, where the outcome is the same between everyone taking the offer. If you are maximizing for the long term everyone should take the offer even if it does result in a reality where everyone loses $1000.

karmakurtisaani4mo ago

Where did they get the notion that the EV of overhiring was high by any measure?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse