Comment on CEOs are astatic about AI because they can train it to always agree with them.
Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 11 months agoI think you have a niave view of CEOs. They always want people to agree with them and they certainly have a bloated ego. I think your interpretation is more the exception than the rule.
Just look at trump. He wanted to tariff he world and instead of trusting one of his advisors to do the research he just let ChatGPT spit out some garbage and went with that.
They always want people to agree with them and they certainly have a bloated ego.
Your description doesn’t match my first hand experience of working with CEOs. A couple have acted like that, sure, but the vast majority were very stressed or miserable fighting to keep their organizations going. Honestly, seeing the job, I know I don’t want it.
How many CEOs do you know or have worked with directly?
At least one.
I could sit here and lie and say a million. Fuck, for all you know I’m the CEO of chucky cheese.
The problem is, I know, and everyone else knows, work culture originates top down. We’ve all had power hungry managers and we know their games.
At least one.
I’d recommend you increase your sample size to give you additional perspective.
The problem is, I know, and everyone else knows, work culture originates top down. We’ve all had power hungry managers and we know their games.
This is too simplistic a view.
Yes, work culture originates from the top, but once in place the corporate culture is supported and re-enforced by middle managers and even the workers themselves. So once that original corporate culture is in place, swapping out the CEO doesn’t change it. It is very very difficult to change an org once it’s culture is set. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard that a process can’t be changed “because we’ve always done it like this”. Sometimes purging existing culture means firing a number of managers and workers that are unconscionably enforcing the existing culture before new work culture can exit. Sometimes it means the entire org has to go.
What it sounds like you’re describing is more of a middle management problem. As in, you’ve been under micromanagers or straight up narcissistic psychos that rose to a position of power, and use their power to abuse those under them. If those kind of people ever rise to executive leadership or even a CEO that usually means the pretty quick firing of that person or the org goes under/gets acquired.
Woo buddy, you know 2 ceos, that’s almost scientific!
Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
On the contrary; the good CEOs are just much quieter. The bad ones are in the news every other week with a new story about how shitty they are. We rarely praise kindness and successes, focusing instead on the latest screw up; so it seems like the screw ups are more prevalent because that’s all you ever hear about.
It’s hard to see the light, when you’re constantly pushed towards the dark.
Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 11 months ago
No. I’m not that optimistic. Theirs a reason. The GOP is the dominat force in American politics. Its not because of MAGAts.