Worst things to do as a company/CEO - Please share and I will add

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

another good one, i've seen managers get put into a position and end up cleaning house either because people liked the old manager so much they quit or they deliberately bring in their boys.

Lmao, this is a "stable" company where there hasn't been management changes in the last 5 years. One hell of a dumpsterfire I am consulting for.

 

[Troon_Patrol]

yes. its been at least a year, is she working somewhere else?

You tell me me. My argument was she was incompetent and was more of an activist and than an advertising exec. I didn't make any statement other than she was horrible at her job.

 

[RussianParasite]

Eventually, no matter what. Being in business with people who are close to you is not a good thing. It prevents you from acting in your best interest, and if you do, it ruins your life.

I agree and would expand here that it messes up your chain of command. If you’re going to do business with another person, make sure it is clear who has the final say on what. Being in business with close people is a bad idea because even if this is established, an outside force (your relationship) could impact sound decision making.

(Hire trannies)>

Yes and this is not a joke. They are a lawsuit waiting to happen. Non-flamboyant gays I’ve never seen a problem with, but I’ve heard almost nothing but horror stories from people that either hired trannies or who had employees that decided to change their gender. Find literally any reason not to employ them.

 

[rel=alternate]

I agree and would expand here that it messes up your chain of command. If you’re going to do business with another person, make sure it is clear who has the final say on what. Being in business with close people is a bad idea because even if this is established, an outside force (your relationship) could impact sound decision making.

I would go as far as saying that such agreements do not matter when you are in the middle of things. Especially not if you're involved with someone who is not a business person to begin with. Because, they just don't understand what the implications are, or think/know that you won't take the necessary steps.

Defining responsibilities, roles and duties only works when you are working with someone who is reasonable, or when you actually can resort to taking action in case of breach or unfulfillment.

In any normal business, if following a disagreement your partner stops working in the business (I think that's the most common occurrence), you have leverages you can use to get them out. You can also sue them for damages.

This gets a lot more complicated if that's someone you are close with, in any capacity. And if they know they can take advantage of the situation, they will. And they will find a way to blame you too.

In the face of the employees, if you find yourself in a situation where they don't know where they stand, it does not matter the roles you defined, they still know who their bosses are, no matter the split on your end.

And you could be tempted to think "Well, I know this person well, and I don't think they would do that to me", and you're probably right at that moment. But life happens, and that's where these disagreements start. Things especially start to heat up when someone needs money and somehow think the business can provide for that need in one way or another, even when it actively hurts the business. Because "it's also their business, and they have a legitimate need", you become the enemy for being the voice of reason. And it suddenly becomes personal.

 

[RussianParasite]

Well, I know this person well, and I don't think they would do that to me", and you're probably right at that moment.

This is a good point. Money can make otherwise good people do some wild shit.

 

[rel=alternate]

This is a good point. Money can make otherwise good people do some wild shit.

True, but I don't even really mean it in the way of greed in particular. Although it is often a factor if you have bad judgment. But really, being close to business partner always creates problem one way or the other.

You can never plan for what life is going to throw at you. Maybe you make a bad investment, maybe one your kid is sick, maybe you have tax issues, maybe you have substance issues, maybe your wife really needs a job and we could find her something, maybe you want to buy a house etc...

It's not so much the money that is the issue (although, it most often is in a way still), but it acts as a catalyst. Because when someone feels like they have a legitimate need and they get told no, they have a hard time to accept it on a personal level. It feels like the right thing to do from their own subjective perspective.

And if they are only a business partner, you still have a chance to try and help in other ways, to have a leveled discussion to try and find solutions. Not that it works all the time, but you have more options, and you don't appear as evil.

If they are somehow more than just a business partner, they will often consider it betrayal. Something personal you're doing to them. And they will try and appeal to whatever relationship you have to try and force your hand. To you or to others. They will become vindictive to the point that the original worry almost becomes secondary.

But honestly, that's only a few things. Ego is also a huge thing, so is pure unadulterated stupidity. Which is a huge problem in family ran businesses in particular.

You can find yourself dragging around deadweight, you can also have a partner who uses the business as an ego boost, and just lords around without even caring about results. But then, you also have pure stupid. The kind where your brother manages to spend 15k on new furniture during your fist vacation in 3 years. The salesman was very convincing.

 

[HahaYes]

As a company, lie about a data breach.
Like AT&T admitted to very recently (Archive) after denying it for 3 years.

"AT&T has finally confirmed it is impacted by a data breach affecting 73 million current and former customers after initially denying the leaked data originated from them. This comes after AT&T has repeatedly denied for the past two weeks that a massive trove of leaked customer data originated from them and or that their systems had been breached. While the company continues to say there is no indication their systems were breached, it has now confirmed that the leaked data belongs to 73 million current and former customers."

No matter how you try play it, it'll always get found out and it'll never end well when you get slapped with a class action.

 

[No Batty Boys in Jamaica]

Remove sticker notifications and react scores.

 

[Major]

Hiring consultants then never following through with their advice.

 

[Betonhaus]

Hiring consultants then never following through with their advice.

Hiring consultants that specifically tell you what you want to hear

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

Hiring consultants that specifically tell you what you want to hear

Hiring activists as consultants.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Buying a start up and putting your own people in charge instead of the people who got the company to the position where you wanted to buy it.

Obviously if you are buying a company on its way down then yeah, replace the losers who got it there, but if you bought a company because it's good, why replace the people who made it how it is so that you wanted to buy it?

 

[Doctor Love]

India never admitted the cause of the accident. Carbide claimed sabotage by an angry pajeet. (He did not like his fellow pajeet managers)

Not just claimed - there really doesn't seem to be any other way to get enough water into the reactor without opening it, and bringing water from somewhere else.

Carbide was wrongly smeared for it imo - I looked over what they actually claimed, and it's flat-out proof that it was sabotage. There would be no way to get enough water in without introducing a pump, or a wide hose to dump water into it. The official reason by India is "backflow" - water entered from a 13mm ID pipe. You would either have to attach a pump to the



God damn, Pajeets just lie - they brought out a Chemist, for some bizarre fucking reason, to explain how it was really the American's fault and made no mention of this.

 

[Cat Funt]

slap some Palestinian flags on your biz, or rainbow shit. That'll keep half the punters away no problem.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Either fucking around with the share price for a Pump and Dump, or firing base staff for more middle managers. Big fuckups are always multiple tiers of people fucking up and claiming they aren't responsible because they aren't higher on the foodchain.

 

[biznbuy]

Hiring activists as consultants.

Literally any consultant, I almost did a retard thing and hired a consultant to help me and a partner setup a particular business, after speaking with the consultant and looking into the local law and requirements I'm glad we didn't drop a few thousand on getting it setup. Might of saved a bit of time, but not much.

I see this a lot in the corporate world, they have consultants for everything, diversity, executive compensation, international relations, etc.

It reminds me of a story I heard.

I think there was a tech ceo, can't remember the company, but he just bought a mid-size poorly ran company and that company had a department dedicated to business analysis or business decision making...it pretty much existed to help maximize executive decision making or some shit. It was a point less department really, pretty much a department with highly paid people and consultants that did something or nothing.

I can't remember the exact details, this was a bar conversation from years ago, but I remember the CEO pretty much killed the whole department and all consultants, saying something like, "I don't need help making business decisions, I actually know how to manage a company."

 

[Staticness]

Tech CEOs often go full DEI and hire on too many white males.

If they stuck to hiring Indians, they wouldn’t have to throw out their entire codebase due to incompetence.

 

[Napoleon III]

Obviously if you are buying a company on its way down then yeah, replace the losers who got it there, but if you bought a company because it's good, why replace the people who made it how it is so that you wanted to buy it?

There is a legitimate reason to do this type of thing, though I agree that it destroys the value of whatever company you are buying.

Basically I think buying companies is a really bad idea in most cases as there is often no real way for you to get value out of it.

You fire a lot of people because you need control over that new business that you just bought. If you keep all of the same old people then they will try and Zig when you want to Zag and you won't be aware of it and you'll eventually have to fire them anyway. Humans have been around for a long time and whenever you take over some kind of organization if you want it to go well you need to put your people in the positions of power if you want to do anything.

Probably the best way to do this sort of thing if you must and buying a new company makes sense is to give large bonuses to the people who work for the business you just acquired. You make them into your people.