Conversation

SBF
@SBF_FTX
Replying to
@SBF_FTX
8) Well, I guess, there are a few options: a) give up and let them do X b) keep arguing for Y c) as a board of directors, veto X d) intervene in management e) say X is right even though you don't think it is
2
34
SBF
@SBF_FTX
9) (b) is stupid, unless you have new evidence/etc.--it's just rehashing it. (e) is stupid too: the least you can do is let them know that you still think Y, so that they don't get misled into thinking there's a consensus and no point in continuing to mull it over.
1
31
SBF
@SBF_FTX
10) (a) and (d) are both options: either let them go with X, or forcibly change management. How about (c)--the board vetoing X? This happens at a lot of companies! But we think it's almost never the correct thing to do.
1
34
SBF
@SBF_FTX
11) The problem is: if you veto X, what will the company do, more generally? Either it'll route around the veto and synthetically do X, in which case it was a dumb idea; or it'll try to do Y this one time but more generally do X, in which case it'll be incoherent and messy;
1
29
SBF
@SBF_FTX
12) or it'll try to become 'the company that does Y'. But if the leadership deeply believes that X is correct, then--*regardless of whether X or Y is correct*--they won't be good at running the Y company. People are not good leaders of a mission they don't believe in.
1
47
SBF
@SBF_FTX
13) We've seen this again and again--it's one of the most consistent patterns. There's no point in trying to force someone to run a company they disagree with, or work on a project they think is dumb. They won't have a vision for it because they don't believe there is one.
7
59
SBF
@SBF_FTX
14) And *they* are the experts in their company (or else why are we bothering with them?). We should update on that even if we don't understand why they think X. So: Companies should be run the way their leadership thinks is right; whether or not we agree.
4
50
SBF
@SBF_FTX
15) In some extreme cases there needs to be a leadership change--that's the only real way to change a company's vision, other than convincing the existing leaders of it. But unless you have a great alternative, it'll probably fail.
4
40
SBF
@SBF_FTX
16) And so in practice, your options are: a) let them do X and hope they're right or that they learn to accept Y b) replace them and watch the company probably fail (b) just isn't exciting unless there's a great alternative.
7
33
SBF
@SBF_FTX
17) So, to go back to the top-- when we disagree with a company we're advising: we'll try to argue for what we think. And if we convince them, great! And if we don't, then we'll encourage them to run with *their* vision, even though it wasn't ours. Hopefully they're right.
8
47
SBF
@SBF_FTX
Replying to
@SBF_FTX
19) That's how we operate, and the way that we would be able to collaborate. If that doesn't work--if we aren't able to have a nuanced, detailed conversation acknowledging realities--then that sucks, but so be it. There's no point in debating if it isn't constructive.
10
43
SBF
@SBF_FTX
20) And the only remaining decision is whether we should run with *our* beliefs about what is best, or whether someone else should take the lead. And we're fine either way! Because usually we all agree on the ultimate goal--it's a question of the best strategy.
31
54
johnnyrsj
@johnnyrsj
Replying to
@SBF_FTX
So…if this is about ‘fixing’ SM & allowing a diverse range of opinions for debate, many don’t want to be constructive, do not acknowledge nuance (what side do I think they’re on?), do not care about details, shouts, name calls, labels & judges, that’s the problem.
Show more replies