Remix.run Logo
edoceo 12 hours ago

What does a CEO(and other managers) do really?

Sometimes the claim is "set vision" - which AI can extract from the collective.

Someimes the claim is to prioritize the work (with bias), AI can extract that from the collective too, right?

Making resources available to the team? AI.

Coordinating between teams? AI.

Can the AI do this in a more un-biased way? Can it refine collective intelligence and desire into objective goals?

More than a software factory id love to see a manager-factory.

One thing, AI cannot do (yet) is bring the network. Like when you hire folk from Booth or Sloan so you can sell to places that hired Booth and Sloan grads.

thelastgallon 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> What does a CEO(and other managers) do really?

Be friends with the board. Negotiate high pay and benefits (for themselves), and a golden parachute in case things go south (which they do most often). Take credit for things that were going to happen anyways. Blame xyz for things that didn't work out.

These are all impossible tasks for AI. AI can't play golf.

a34729t 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Chinese humanoid robots are 3 years out from playing a decent round on a par 3 course.

newyankee 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

See, the issue is CEOs capture a fair amount of value but ultimately it is the owners and the main shareholders who hire them for that value to insulate themselves from day to day running of the company. The maximum value of the company is accruing to the shareholders in a public company anyways. While the morality of the right nos compared to median 'worker' can always be debated, I still find CEO earns 500x that of median worker type comparisons a little bit disingenuous and it totally insulates the owner class.

conductr 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s going to be funny when the Tesla robots start showing up at tee times because the CEO couldn’t make it. Like a meeting agent taking notes for people who didn’t attend

7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
jaggederest 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To paraphrase Andy Grove:

> The job of an executive is: to define and enforce culture and values for their whole organization, and to ratify good decisions.

(And that's the whole list! Nowhere do you find set tasks or make decisions)

To me, that means that they're still pretty essential - on both fronts, AI needs values and AI needs a system that can tell whether decisions are good or not.

bronson 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> AI needs values and AI needs a system that can tell whether decisions are good or not

Well, so do most CEOs.

parineum 10 hours ago | parent [-]

There are hundreds of thousands of CEOs of companies you've never heard of.

edoceo 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If the operation is to distill options into a few choices, and then pick the "best" one then, I think hivemind can win there too. Real-time democracy running a business.

For example an open-source project could/would still have a BDFL but, the AI-CEO could do the operational busywork while the BDFL is out talking to humans and presenting at PGCon or some other productive thing.

jaggederest 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Nope! that's the subtlety. "distill options" is not the CEO's (or any executive's) job.

The way he phrases it, if I remember correctly (and this is by no means the only way to executive, I just really like his framing), is that the way you make decisions is by getting your immediate subordinates to agree, and they iterate. Decisions should be made at the lowest level that they can be made at, and if that's the CEO level, you've made mistakes.

So you make the values list, you make sure that people live by it (up to and including firing people who don't and hiring people who do, which he basically thinks is the whole day to day), and then you bring your subordinates together to agree on decisions. If they don't agree, you send them off to work through it together and come back with consensus (or, less great, compromise). If you have to put your thumb on the scale to get a good decision, again, you're not CEOing well.

Basically if you have to be a dictator, there's no way you can actually effectively do that. Proper leadership is getting people to act the way you would, if you had all the knowledge and perspective they do, but without having to make them do it. Lift them up, empower them, give them the responsibility and tools and values, and then endorse the result.

vasco 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Real-time democracy running a business

This is not a competitive advantage

DoctorOetker 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Neither is dictatorship?

jeezfrk 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Business actually treats a pseudo-dictatorship (with the requisite yes-men) as "good leadership".

Most times it's pretty simple, in my experience. A CEO either runs a business as a (1) Sales focus [best deals and vendors] or (2) Marketing focus [best reputation and trends] or (3) Investor focus [best boardroom friends].

Lots of other opinions are usually thrown out until there's really only one facet used for running the company.

vintermann 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sure, if by business you mean investors.

kian 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

is there a (4) or (5) that would be preferable? :)

parineum 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It is.

The best products are usually from single minds with a strong vision. "Too many cooks in the kitchen" is a phrase for a reason.

Your least favorite products are designed by committee or a vision less person following trends.

vintermann 9 hours ago | parent [-]

As long as investors believe this, it matters less if it's true or not.

mrheosuper 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>AI needs a system that can tell whether decisions are good or not.

So they need someone to review AI output huh?

m463 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

dan_can_code 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Enforcing culture is not something I believe is possible. Nobody is going to listen to the C suite suit over their own experience with their colleagues. People just end up saying the right buzzwords to appear that the culture has been adopted, but it will be mostly met with malicious compliance. If the culture is driven by incentives and rewards for behaviour,then that's a whole different ball game.

snoman 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> Enforcing culture is not something I believe is possible.

> … the culture is driven by incentives and rewards for behaviour…

Not sure what your definition of enforcing is… but it doesn’t have to be by actual force.

expensive_news 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

At my current job, a 10 person startup, the CEOs job is to generate leads, talk to potential customers, and close deals. He, along with the other founders, shape what we work on based on what he thinks it’s possible for us to sell. He’s essential to the business.

At my previous 50k person company I never talked to anyone within 4 levels of the CEO and thought he was useless. But realistically he probably had a somewhat similar job - talking with the board, talking with politicians, and talking with the CEOs of other companies in the effort to lower costs (tax breaks, partnerships, etc) and generate sales (contracts, partnerships, etc).

cybrox 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Similar, yes, but instead of finding out who else can give you money at 10 people, they have to find out who else they have to give money at 10k people. Leads and lobbies.

vintermann 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's a sales person.

nkmnz 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

A sales person is usually trained on an existing product or portfolio of products (including services). A good sales person might use their exposure to customers for gathering valuable information to feed back into their upstream org. But this is completely different from someone who has to actively shape a both sides of the company, value delivery and value creation, because both need to mature in a choreographed manner.

So you are right in one direction: a good CEO often has to be a good sales person. The reverse does not apply, though.

moregrist 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There’s a reason that many CEOs have a stint in sales.

In a stable, profitable company, you need sales to keep the business solvent. And understanding the sales pipeline is pretty essential to effectively running a business.

Where this breaks down is when the C-suite forgets that you also need a product, and you need to keep innovating on that product in ways that bring value to current and future customers. This seems to happen pretty frequently.

missedthecue 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In companies large enough to have a board, the CEO's job is to manage relationships with customers, vendors, and wall street. If his company is big enough, he'll need to manage relationships with the government too. In fact, among founders whose business became big, the number one complaint you hear is how little of their busy day is spent on their actual product anymore.

AI is not very good at forming and building human relationships.

andsoitis 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Sometimes the claim is "set vision" - which AI can extract from the collective.

To be an effective CEO, you have to make judgement calls that the collective can’t always have wisdom and context on, is confidential, or requires fast decision making during which there are interactive discussions or negotiations!

sandeepkd 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is highly subjective and a gives an impression that every one is doing a very effective job. The reality is much more grey when you account for so many companies that get shut down.

My personal take, somewhere down the line people feel scared of taking responsibility for more than themselves and their family. This limits the ability for most people to take on such ventures. Not everyone falls in the same bucket but a lot of leadership in todays date is about taking the role without responsibility. They happen to be in the role with the help of network affect and somehow that just amplifies.

andsoitis 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> This is highly subjective and a gives an impression that every one is doing a very effective job. The reality is much more grey when you account for so many companies that get shut down.

I believe that the average are average.

I don’t believe what I wrote suggests that. I was attempting to be as neutral as possible.

Freedom2 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Like RTO mandates which were definitely made with wisdom.

andsoitis 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Not all CEOs did that. Just like all software engineers aren't great or excellent, all CEOs aren't. But to categorically denounce seems rigid.

UqWBcuFx6NV4r 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Their job is to create an environment where people with a view as narrow and naive as yours can actually do something wholly productive.

Zylokloto 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Good ones actually are quite aware of the industry, connect the dots and setup the company to be sustainable, growing and ready when its time to be ready.

Like investing in a prototype which solves industry issues the CEO understood.

Same as the CTO just that the CTOs focus is doing the same thing with technology. Like in an org with a lot of 'AI? who cares" saying and seeing the future of it and intorducing it in time and not until everyone else already did it.

Defining core principles like the tech stack, making the decision to keep the current setup or migrating to something 'new' but better in longterm (like migrating from or to kubernetes)

swader999 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Marketing and they hire and fire important people. That's about it though, where we should take the product, what features to do next, partnerships, these are pretty obvious to anyone paying attention.

collingreen 10 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't think these things are obvious. I've worked at many places that have had big, company-changing forks in the road available to them and navigating those forks wasn't easy (and in my opinion several times we chose wrong). The crowd wasn't always right or even well aligned and sometimes the only agreement was that a middle of the road approach would be worse. My intuition says getting that right takes a lot of luck, good momentum, and a lot of departments working well together (bringing in and communicating market info, broadcasting marketing that works, making good partnerships, etc). The cynic in me thinks one big impact of a ceo is the various cheating and corruption tools that can make some of those things easier or at least less critical to get right (you don't need to make good cybertrucks or convince people to buy them if the government agrees to buy 450k of them as "armored vehicles", for example).

If that kind of thing is easy for you (the honest ones or the clandestine ones) then you might make a really strong entrepreneur/business leader.

sensanaty 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They siphon away as much money as they can get away with , screw over their underlings and hop onto their golden parachutes whenever shit hits the fan, which with their short-sighted coke-fuelled decisions always happens.

nullorempty 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well, as soon as they start being replaced is there a network to bring.

forestrywat 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Managers coach and develop people. Helping them grow, nurturing their strengths and connecting them with opportunities that help them achieve more.

At least the good ones do.

mulderc 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, that is a good manager, but in my experience, it is better if the culture of the team is about ensuring everyone has opportunities to grow, build on their strengths, and connect with opportunities. When that is considered the manager’s job, and not the job of every member of the team, people get neglected, and many strengths and opportunities go to waste.

forestrywat 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Best managers make this the core culture in the team.

mulderc 7 hours ago | parent [-]

"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all." — God

raymond_goo 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://youtu.be/UOYi4NzxlhE?t=82

hansvm 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> can AI do <hard thing>

Not yet. Maybe soon. I'm not placing bets on timelines.

> What do CEOs do

No clue. I'm not there yet. Maybe it's critical. Maybe nothing.

> and other managers

There are a lot of bad managers. I'm halfway not terrible. A significant part of my job is setting technical direction in the same way I did as a staff+ engineer but without the overhead of asking somebody else's permission. Another large part is the "shit shield" function -- somebody thinks they want something, and they either find themselves blocked by me or immediately satisfied with whatever code I'm able to cook up between meetings, not breaking the team's concentration. A huge part is basically just being a teacher, and I love teaching (if it weren't so pessimized by society that might actually be my career). A large part of it is navigating organizational nonsense (for "reasons," I'm rambling, ask if you're curious). And... whatever. My job didn't get easier going into management. Not all of it should have to exist in the abstract, but in any specific company it's still an important function.

stale2002 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> What does a CEO(and other managers) do really?

The answer is to be responsible to the business. The buck stops at the CEO. Therefore, their responsibilities are technically everything in the entire company. And I think many people who have only worked for other people underestimate how valuable that responsibility is.

rideontime 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Many people observe reality, where the workers end up being the ones held accountable for the CEO's decisions, not the CEO.

SpicyLemonZest 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Many people observe a limited subset of reality. It's highly visible when a company hits a crisis and people lose their jobs; it's much more common, but much less visible, for a CEO to get an after-hours call about a brewing problem which they must immediately work to smooth over.

UqWBcuFx6NV4r 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It’s amazing how many people on this website harp on about nobody noticing their hard work, nobody caring unless the server is down, etc, and not being able to conceive of the remote chance of this same phenomenon applying to other roles in an organisation.

matchbok3 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Workers are not legally or financially accountable for any of that. That is the whole point of a "job". I think you are confused.

JDups 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

When the worker loses their jobs over bad executive decisions, they sure feel like they were pretty harshly financially penalized for those decisions.

NegativeLatency 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Neither are CEOs in our present society

rideontime 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Are you confusing CEOs with founders, shareholders, etc.? Chief Executive Officer is, in fact, a "job."

sandeepkd 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I wish that was true some how. In real world unfortunately the buck stops at whoever is easy scape goat, at times it can be a CEO

Zanfa 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Doesn't this usually just mean saying "I take full responsibility" and then firing a bunch of unrelated people?

a34729t 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Rewponsibility is why we pay external consultants!

volkercraig 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

CEO's exist as a sink for liability. When something goes wrong, they are the fall guys, that's ultimately their job. That's why CEO compensation is generally correlated strongly to earnings and they usually have golden parachutes.

Without a CEO to fire when the business goes south, how is the board supposed to respond? Taking accountability? lmao

SlightlyLeftPad 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They manage people. They’re people people.

penguin_booze 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> What does a CEO(and other managers) do really?

Take risk with other people's lives and earn the big bucks for that.

UqWBcuFx6NV4r 5 hours ago | parent [-]

If you were legitimately suddenly saddled with the responsibilities of a typical ‘CEO’, chances are you’d shit your britches within a month.

Part of a CEO’s job is to be the target of all warranted and unwarranted blame for every single bad thing that anyone in the organisation experiences, even the inherent/inevitable ones, even the ones that others in the organisation see as a good thing.

Me. Not a CEO, and no desire to be. I’m also about as lefty as they come, definitely not a bootlicker or ladder climber. I’m just not a delusional, naive, unjustifiably self-righteous grunt, seemingly unlike many people sounding off on this thread.

meta_gunslinger 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Exactly, as also evidenced by the guy who was brutally murdered just because he was the CEO of a company someone had an axe to grind against.

baalimago 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They ensure the company is funded.

gib444 5 hours ago | parent [-]

This! They sell the company and vision to potential investors

inkyoto 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In the current legal framework, AI can't be held accountable, a human being is required.

That is what the CEO is for – to be on the receiving end of beatings and flogging if the business they are at the masthead of effs something up.

valleyer 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Good point. CEOs of companies are often held personally accountable for corporate malfeasance by "the current legal framework".

fooker 11 hours ago | parent [-]

I understand your sarcasm but that’s what the limited in LLC is for.

Unbounded liability means nobody starts a business, or they do it under the table without responsibility or taxes.

Turns out we want successful private businesses much more than we want to hold a few nasty CEOs accountable.

valleyer 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I agree. I just thought it was funny that someone was pointing out the legal unaccountability of an AI in this context.

inkyoto 11 hours ago | parent [-]

There is no need for two penny sarcasm.

I deliberately stopped short of invoking golden parachutes and the numerous other escape hatches available at that altitude, as I am perfectly aware they exist. I am equally aware of chief executives who have departed with remarkable agility from organisations they themselves had first steered off the cliff.

My point, however, remains the same: as the letter of the law presently stands, AI can't be made accountable – at least not today.

vasco 11 hours ago | parent [-]

The sarcasm was pretty funny so it has some utility, no need to be so serious

nradov 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

LLCs and other corporate structures only (mostly) protect employees and shareholders from civil judgments. CEOs and other executives are also at risk of criminal penalties for Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) violations and similar. Actual criminal prosecutions of CEOs have been few, but not zero.

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/oklahomacity/press-release...

fooker 8 hours ago | parent [-]

The typical corporate trick is to argue that the corporation itself is responsible for any wrongdoing, not a particular executive.

I can totally see this blame being shifted to AI in a "nobody got fired for choosing IBM" way.

10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
bob1029 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> What does a CEO(and other managers) do really?

The point of a CEO is to be able to deploy a fully authoritative business delegation to any golf course on earth within 48 hours.

This isn't really a joke. At some point, you need to meet with your customers if you intend to close a deal. B2C is also an option but good luck actually making realistic income in this market without an army at your back.

I have yet to meet a developer (myself included) that I would trust to be alone in the board room with a very large client. Total mastery of the technology is great, but you also need to convince people who aren't compelled by rational technological arguments. Sometimes the only way to convince them is to go on a very expensive fishing trip.

CEOs get a lot of hate for the pay and power, but they endure a lot of shit that most developers couldn't handle for more than five minutes. Sitting at fancy restaurants with these people is torture. I can respect anyone who refuses to believe this, but it's true. There's no cuisine or vintage of wine that can compensate for awful company.

Covenant0028 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Ah yes, the unbearable burden of sipping fine wine at a Michelin star restaurant with a less than stellar company.

That's surely way worse than the fate Bezos inflicts on his workers, such as forcing them to work in extremely hazardous warehouses and to pee in bottles.