An aside, but:

> Alas, after the deal was done EA promptly started to pull Molyneux in way too many directions for his liking. He was given a set of executive titles and the executive suite to go along with it, removing him from the day-to-day work in the trenches. <snip> Molyneux was painfully ill-equipped for the role of a glad-handing EA vice president; it just made him uncomfortable and miserable.

I see this all of the time in corporate life: the assumption that someone is good at one role, so they must be suited to the next role up, even if the requirements are entirely different. It's such a shame that we're not better at figuring this out as a race, as it leads to so much friction with people being promoted to roles they're not suited to for a variety of reasons, and the negative organisational consequences as a result.

▲

spuz 5 days ago | parent [-]

This is known as the Peter Principle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

▲

mft_ 5 days ago | parent [-]

Thanks :)

I guess what I'm wishing for is better awareness of areas of strength and weakness when making such decisions.

I can think of people who should never have been promoted to, say, a strategic role or a team management role, but would have been excellent to be promoted to an expert individual contributor (i.e. 'fellow', or 'expert scientist') role.

	▲	lunaticlabs 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The industry has those roles now, and I know people in them. They're not wide spread, but they do exist and I do work in games. This is something that has come as the industry has matured.