Raise a beer: Titans of tech fill out 'Worst CEOs' list Tech bosses were rapped for drinking beer during conference calls, wearing hoodies in the boardroom and losing huge amounts of money in a round-up of 2012's worst CEOs. The list was compiled by Professor Sydney Finkelstein of the Tuck School of Business at US Ivy League school Dartmouth College. Speaking to Bloomberg TV, Prof …
> when it comes to running a multibillion-dollar company, you have to behave a certain way.
Lie, cheat, steal, and run your company into the ground while making out like a bandit? Is that what he means, perhaps?
I could see Zuck getting a mention for the Facebook IPO fiasco, but to criticise him because of his clothing? That's a pretty weak and shallow criticism, even for a "top 10" list. I would hope any serious investor would be able to see past any frippery, to judge the actual business they invest in. Personally, I'd rather invest my money in hoodie-adorned Zuck's Facebook than suited-and-booted Elop's Nokia, for example.
Indeed. The insistence on men wearing a suit in most work places baffles me. You see women wearing all and sundry in work. Men however are stuck to their dull 19th century costumes. Luckily, ties seem to be losing favour. No idea why ties have remained around whereas the hat disappeared. The hat at least kept your bonce warm whereas ties just seem to strangle you, end up in your food and dangle around uselessly...
I'm not interested in defending Mark Zuckerberg but it's odd isn't it, the very mentality that built Facebook's success - that made investors want to invest - those investors are now saying he shouldn't have.
They seem to be saying, "Well done on fostering a culture that contributes to me making a lot of money. Now please stop doing that and focus on edifying us!"
Irrespective of my opinion of hoodies in general (top post), or Mr Zuck in particular, I have to agree that he can wear whatever he wants if he is running his company legally. Plenty of 'business people' out there should have long ago traded their tie for an orange jump-suit.
I find any Worst CEO of 2012 list that does not include Stephen Elop to be seriously suspect. I mean, doubling down on a losing strategy, while tossing your institutional knowledge overboard, seems like it should be a reason Why Smart Executives Fail.
But castigating Zuckerberg for not wearing a 19th Century period costume is pretty low. Zuckerberg signals that he doesn't care about the traditional finance people. In fact, he doesn't. As long as he has controlling shares, it doesn't really matter what other people think, as long as he doesn't break any laws. If Zuckerberg can reduce his mental burden by wearing a hoodie every day, then he can concentrate his energy on stuff that really matters to his shareholders (especially himself).
On the other hand, what has Sydney Finkelstein done? Trained a bunch of executives? Made friends with the 1%? I require better reasons why I should pay attention to Finkelstein instead of Zuckerberg.
> I find any Worst CEO of 2012 list that does not include Stephen Elop to be seriously suspect.
'Seriously suspect' is being kind. 'Unfit for publication' would be more like it.
It's like publishing a list of the World's All Time Greatest Chess Players without including Bobby Fischer.
It's like publishing a list of the World's All Time Greatest Chess Players without including Bobby Fischer.
He was a communist, you know.
When I read the title I was sure Nokia's supremo must be the undisputed leader, yet he is not even present. 'Unfit for publication' is a good rate.
Icon representing the proper dress code.
I always thought Pincus would have made number 1 on this least, and by a large margin.
As said he effectively drove Zynga stock prices into the ground, and just from interviews with employees / previous employes the guy is a bully and a crook. But he's lower down on the list than a CEO who sold a failing company because it could no longer compete in the modern market, and slept with his secretary?
It sounds like this guy is putting his own morals before the key facts.
Its the vampire squid and other banktards who, in a coke-fuelled haze, over rate these companies and pump up the valuations. All fees, all the time.
Of course the bubble bursts when they move to another target. Its not that the CEO has destroyed the real value/utility of their company - it was never there to start with.
.. Drink beer while on conference calls, or really at any time.
You're the boss, so fuck it, if you've already made a ton of cash from a very dodgy business model, may as well revel in that fact.
I've never used groupon, and I heard it screwed over small businesses with its model, but now I suddenly have respect for the CEO.
If I'm going to a meeting as a customer and potential investor I expect someone to be smartly dressed. I don't care if it's only while I'm there, but it shows respect. That level of respect is then engendered into the company.
It's a bit like why airline pilots wear a uniform - it puts them in the mindset of being an airline pilot. I watched the documentary about Iron Maiden recently where Bruce Dickinson flew the whole tour round the world in a converted airliner. When he was "in pilot mode" he was always in a uniform, even when everyone else was in their best jeans and T shirt.
"in pilot mode" There are good reasons for wearing the uniform apart from the (valid) attitude one. Employees and management at airports often won't take anyone seriously who says they are a pilot but don't look like one. This can have serious hassle factor connotations and waste a lot of time.
(ex commercial/airline pilot in developing countries).
I wear a suit when I visit a customer who wears a suit, dress down when my customer does because they are paying me (indirectly) and I want to work smoothly with them but an investor is a different story, surely the respect you show should be in relation to how much you want their money - if they're willing to capitalise Facebook to the tune of USD45Bilion then how much more do they need him than he needs them? He could probably have come to meetings wearing fluffy bunny slippers and a mickey mouse T-shirt and still had them begging him to let them invest.
But people who regularly wear a suit to the office? They're generally untrustworthy wankers, in my opinion, probably more concerned with outward appearance, rather than what is actually going on. A shirt and a tie should suffice.
I like wearing a suit to the office, it allows me to get home and take off my "work stuff" and switch into "home mode". It also means that I don't wear out my nice clothes just by working in them.
I'd like to think that I'm a pretty nice person and fairly trustworthy, but then again I would say that, wouldn't I?
> But people who regularly wear a suit to the office?
I find it saves a great deal of time. Time that I would otherwise have to spend establishing my credibility.
A lot (possibly: most) of the meetings I have to present at or contribute to, have decision makers who are not that technical. What I mean by that is they don't know the difference between a gigabyte and their elbow. That doesn't mean they're bad at their jobs, just that their jobs and mine have few intersections: I don't understand their jargon, processes or motivations and they don't understand mine - but we do have a mutual respect for each other's position. However, if you want sign-off or approval for a project, investment or piece of development, you need their nod.
It might not be the best situation, but it's the one we have. Since I'm not in the business of changing the world, you learn to play by its rules.
Now, I can go to the small amount of trouble of pulling a suit, shirt and tie out of the wardrobe - or I can spend the first half hour of a meeting with strangers (whom i may or may not have to build a working relationship with) trying to convince them that I DO know what I'm talking about and that they should listen to what I have to say. If I want their respect, I have to show some of my own - and that means indicating that I've gone to the trouble of taking them seriously and dressing in a way that they expect serious, professional people to present themselves. If it's my "outward appearance" that helps convince them, then so be it - it's a small price to pay for getting what I want. Luckily it seems to be a successful strategy, for all concerned: my career and the business.
So wearing an £x00 suit suddenly makes you credible?
You realise that's not a very clever or practical way to judge actual ability or predict performance?
Does it really not bother you that all it takes to persuade the unknowing that you're a serious professional with decades of experience and a no-nonsense attitude is clothes?
This fact on its own explains why so much corporate process is a temple to idiocy. As Dominic Connor would doubtless point out, it's all about appearance management and the faking of credibility, not reality-based talent and ability.
So wearing an £x00 suit suddenly makes you credible?
You realise that's not a very clever or practical way to judge actual ability or predict performance?
Does it really not bother you that all it takes to persuade the unknowing that you're a serious professional with decades of experience and a no-nonsense attitude is clothes?
This fact on its own explains why so much corporate process is a temple to idiocy. As Dominic Connor would doubtless point out, it's all about appearance management and the faking of credibility, not reality-based talent and ability.
I can't argue with any of your views about how the world should be. All I can say is, as with many things we have to put up with, it defies logic. But railing against the "is" in favour of the "ought to" doesn't help me achieve my goals. So, when I know that my proposal is the best solution I have no qualms to using whatever (legal / ethical) means of persuasion have the greatest effect. For me, in my particular situation, dressing as you would for a job interview (which is another situation where we hope to impress & persuade) seems to help. It may only boost my confidence, or it may present me as a professional. Either way, I find that I get fewer objections, and occasionally people call me "sir"!
"I find it saves a great deal of time. Time that I would otherwise have to spend establishing my credibility."
I also find it saves a great deal of time. Time that I would otherwise have to spend choosing what to wear.
Grab random suit. Grab random shirt. Pants+socks. Appropriately dressed for office in 1 minute without having to engage a single braincell. Plenty of pockets for wallets, traintickets, bberry, phone, etc.Surprisingly comfortable (if you get ones which fit you properly).
If you can't get away with wearing the same stuff to the office that you wear when rebuilding the barn, you can do worse than choose a suit.
A decision maker who is so superficial as to judge someone by their clothes - and prefers colleagues to dress like a used-car salesman - should be sacked. Today.
If you're trying to impress them with your technical competence, the way to do it is surely *not* to start by dressing like someone whose skill-set is totally different.
This post has been deleted by its author
It isn't just about projecting an outside image - I find that being fully suited and booted makes me more self critical about my professional behaviour and tends to make me 'raise my game' (urgh, I can't believe I just typed that phrase.)
In these firms that is not happening. Plus they are selling their own stock.
I think Ballmer gets a pass because MS stock is rising
As for suits I can see both arguments. I'm used to putting a suit on and getting into "work mode" but I never wear one working from home. Plenty of Wall Street banksters would not be seen without one. They still tended to snort Coke by the pound and p**s it away on $1400/hr escort services.
What the Zuck?
While as pointed out above a suit aids credibility if that's the best you have on him its hardly worth worrying about.
Having met a few renowned businessmen their reputation and presence tend to do more than a finely crafted suit ever could. If investors were not sure of Facebook's worth then why did they throw money at the IPO? If the investors were offended that some kid in a hoodie was worth more personally than all of them they need to man up.
There are far more worthy candidates:
who has only a couple of suppliers in a flood prone valley?
Who can't restore their data in a few days when your business seems to depend on that, ripping people off with overdraft fees and manipulating Libor rates. Yes I know they aren't a 'tech' company but with the branch closures they aren't much more than an internet company.
Who is so arrogant they suddenly discover their business has all gone to a faster more agile competitor.
Who hacked off their only supplier for a key component with patent litigation?
I was on the Jack Daniels the other week when taking tech support calls as well as eating a fine Texas BBQ Pizza.
Just 'cos these things are not in the news regularly doesn't mean they go one!
I know the MD of one large phone company that went office chair racing with some of his staff on the top floor of their office one evening when things were quiet...!
His staff love him and he has a great staff retention rate. Not often at the moment staff like their boss.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
