Great public hi-tech companies have no future.
At the end of the 20th century, Yahoo was a great company; now it is on the verge of ruin and sales in parts. At the time of Steve Jobs, Apple was a great company - now the iPhone is not the technological flagship of the industry, but only a mediocre repetition of the flagships of other manufacturers. Microsoft under Bill Gates was a great company - now it is not even the leader in the field of operating systems, and the losses after unsuccessful investments in the purchase of the Nokia phone unit are fantastic in size. Let's speculate why this happens.
Each company from the world of high technology was created by the audacious visionary of the future, an idealist, a man of strategic psycho. Otherwise, it is impossible to build business processes that “shoot” not here and now, but in a few years, when the company's product will be ready for publication. But people of a strategic psychotype have an inborn weakness - it is difficult for them from a tactical point of view, their “vision” is far superior to “execution”. Therefore, as a rule, they take as tactical psycho-assistants as assistants who close the “hole” in terms of fulfilling the vision, they themselves often do not possess visionism, and if they do, they are extremely weak. They become the “right hand” of strategic leaders, the lifesaver for the company's founders in earthly affairs of business and production management.
But what happens when a company becomes public and includes external shareholders? Obviously, the motivation of these people is the growth of stocks and the company's profitability, that is, the emphasis from visionary is shifted to a tactical approach to managing the company's assets here and now. In such circumstances, the company's founder, an idealist-strategist, rebelling against a shift in priorities, becomes superfluous, he is often removed from the management of the company, and in his place is a leader-tactician, sometimes coming from the side, sometimes the “right hand” of the company's founder. Or, for one reason or another, the founder of the company retires, or dies - time does not spare anyone. But in any case, the tactician is at the head of the company created by the strategist. And it becomes the beginning of the end of a high-tech company.
The fact is that in the modern business in the field of high technology trends and approaches are changing with breakneck speed. The fact that a year ago was the peak, today is already at the tail of a race for interest and, therefore, with consumer money. A tactician usually does not change the direction of business movement that was laid down by the founder-strategist, because he himself cannot come up with anything new in this, just following what someone else has invented. Attempting to follow the leaders of the race ends, usually rather sadly, because in the high-tech world everyone knows only the company that heads, and not the one that follows. As a result, the costs of research, development, and support of a product or service turn out to be significantly greater than the generated money flow. The company becomes unprofitable. External shareholders in this case simply fix their profits or losses, leaving the company's share capital, accelerating its agony. The company is ruined, it is sold in parts. Finita la comedy. The CEO-tactician enters the labor market with a “golden parachute” in his pocket and a good record with a resume.
')
You ask: what prevents the board of directors from finding a strategic manager within the company? The answer is banal - almost all the activities of a high-tech company are “execution” and not “visionary”. Therefore, a person of a strategic psychotype, getting inside to a grassroots position, feels uncomfortable, constrained, his strengths are unclaimed, and in career growth, much more popular tactics overtake him like Achilles tortoise. As a result, people-strategists either leave to base their startup and realize their own vision of the trends and changes of this world, creating the future with their own hands, or they live in lower positions in the company without a single chance to get into the “radar” of the board of directors.
What is the way out, you ask? The answer is obvious and banal - there should be two CEOs, two CEOs in each high-tech company. One of the generals is responsible for tactics, the other for strategy. You can not dismiss the "strategic director" and hire tactics in his place, nor can you dismiss the "tactical director" and hire a person of a strategic psycho type for his position. Only in this case, the great hi-tech companies will find the future, and will not go bankrupt in a template scenario.
Each company from the world of high technology was created by the audacious visionary of the future, an idealist, a man of strategic psycho. Otherwise, it is impossible to build business processes that “shoot” not here and now, but in a few years, when the company's product will be ready for publication. But people of a strategic psychotype have an inborn weakness - it is difficult for them from a tactical point of view, their “vision” is far superior to “execution”. Therefore, as a rule, they take as tactical psycho-assistants as assistants who close the “hole” in terms of fulfilling the vision, they themselves often do not possess visionism, and if they do, they are extremely weak. They become the “right hand” of strategic leaders, the lifesaver for the company's founders in earthly affairs of business and production management.
But what happens when a company becomes public and includes external shareholders? Obviously, the motivation of these people is the growth of stocks and the company's profitability, that is, the emphasis from visionary is shifted to a tactical approach to managing the company's assets here and now. In such circumstances, the company's founder, an idealist-strategist, rebelling against a shift in priorities, becomes superfluous, he is often removed from the management of the company, and in his place is a leader-tactician, sometimes coming from the side, sometimes the “right hand” of the company's founder. Or, for one reason or another, the founder of the company retires, or dies - time does not spare anyone. But in any case, the tactician is at the head of the company created by the strategist. And it becomes the beginning of the end of a high-tech company.
The fact is that in the modern business in the field of high technology trends and approaches are changing with breakneck speed. The fact that a year ago was the peak, today is already at the tail of a race for interest and, therefore, with consumer money. A tactician usually does not change the direction of business movement that was laid down by the founder-strategist, because he himself cannot come up with anything new in this, just following what someone else has invented. Attempting to follow the leaders of the race ends, usually rather sadly, because in the high-tech world everyone knows only the company that heads, and not the one that follows. As a result, the costs of research, development, and support of a product or service turn out to be significantly greater than the generated money flow. The company becomes unprofitable. External shareholders in this case simply fix their profits or losses, leaving the company's share capital, accelerating its agony. The company is ruined, it is sold in parts. Finita la comedy. The CEO-tactician enters the labor market with a “golden parachute” in his pocket and a good record with a resume.
')
You ask: what prevents the board of directors from finding a strategic manager within the company? The answer is banal - almost all the activities of a high-tech company are “execution” and not “visionary”. Therefore, a person of a strategic psychotype, getting inside to a grassroots position, feels uncomfortable, constrained, his strengths are unclaimed, and in career growth, much more popular tactics overtake him like Achilles tortoise. As a result, people-strategists either leave to base their startup and realize their own vision of the trends and changes of this world, creating the future with their own hands, or they live in lower positions in the company without a single chance to get into the “radar” of the board of directors.
What is the way out, you ask? The answer is obvious and banal - there should be two CEOs, two CEOs in each high-tech company. One of the generals is responsible for tactics, the other for strategy. You can not dismiss the "strategic director" and hire tactics in his place, nor can you dismiss the "tactical director" and hire a person of a strategic psycho type for his position. Only in this case, the great hi-tech companies will find the future, and will not go bankrupt in a template scenario.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/300696/
All Articles