The original post was interesting because it attempted to simplify something (the role of CEO) to its core, which is an exercise that is always thought provoking and revealing.
This post is more just a run-of-the-mill HBR-style article. It seems to be more a clarification for people who won't get the point anyway. To paraphrase the first clarification: [setting a vision involves developing one in the first place...] Yuhthink?
Don't forget getting your pals on the board (and having them put you on their boards) so you can give each high compensation packages and maintain control (extract the maximium value from the companies into your own pockets).
Comments
The original post was interesting because it attempted to simplify something (the role of CEO) to its core, which is an exercise that is always thought provoking and revealing.
This post is more just a run-of-the-mill HBR-style article. It seems to be more a clarification for people who won't get the point anyway. To paraphrase the first clarification: [setting a vision involves developing one in the first place...] Yuhthink?
Is HBR in your comment Harvard Business Review?
Not the previous poster, but I'm sure it is Harvard Business Review.
How do you reconcile "Nothing interesting happens in the office" with startup CEOs who are often founders and involved in the day to day?
Don't forget getting your pals on the board (and having them put you on their boards) so you can give each high compensation packages and maintain control (extract the maximium value from the companies into your own pockets).