How would you rank Mark Zuckerburg in effectiveness leading a company? (1 Viewer)

[Ministry of Pain]

Seems pretty on point that a number of armchair quarterbacks on a fantasy football message board would have no problem critiquing one of the most successful business owners alive today.

Anyone posting in this thread has achieved 1,000th (at best) what Zuckerberg has.

I think the same thing of people that called Musk an idiot when he bought Twitter.

To quote the movie, The Social Network, "If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook."

I've noticed people on the internet think more highly of themselves and their opinions than they ought.

One of the worst movies ever, glad you posted it
And you fat shamed us

 

[MTskibum]

Seems pretty on point that a number of armchair quarterbacks on a fantasy football message board would have no problem critiquing one of the most successful business owners alive today.

Anyone posting in this thread has achieved 1,000th (at best) what Zuckerberg has.

I think the same thing of people that called Musk an idiot when he bought Twitter.

To quote the movie, The Social Network, "If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook."

I've noticed people on the internet think more highly of themselves and their opinions than they ought.

I don't think someone working construction, grocery store or similar is below me. I don't think they are any less of a person because of lower pay with opinions less valuable than mine because they make less money or have not had the career I have had.

Nor do I think tech elites are beyond critique because they are perfect people.

Just because someone gets power they are not a good person, in fact just the opposite may be the case here, maybe Zuck got more power than he should of because of unscrupulous activity.


signed,
1/1000 the person of zuck i guess.

 

[Jayrod]

Seems pretty on point that a number of armchair quarterbacks on a fantasy football message board would have no problem critiquing one of the most successful business owners alive today.

Anyone posting in this thread has achieved 1,000th (at best) what Zuckerberg has.

I think the same thing of people that called Musk an idiot when he bought Twitter.

To quote the movie, The Social Network, "If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook."

I've noticed people on the internet think more highly of themselves and their opinions than they ought.

I don't think someone working construction, grocery store or similar is below me. I don't think they are any less of a person because of lower pay with opinions less valuable than mine because they make less money or have not had the career I have had.

Nor do I think tech elites are beyond critique because they are perfect people.

Just because someone gets power they are not a good person, in fact just the opposite may be the case here, maybe Zuck got more power than he should of because of unscrupulous activity.


signed,
1/1000 the person of zuck i guess.

Not what I said, like at all.

This is specifically about his ability to lead a company. I'm sure you are a fine person and I'm pretty confident that Zuckerburg is not a good person.

People that have never lead a company say Zuckerburg or Musk or any number of high achieving business owners are bad business owners. It reminds me when some 5'9" overweight guy who couldn't even make his varsity football team calls an NFL QB "garbage" because he threw 3 picks in a game or sealed a playoff loss with a bad throw.

 

[MTskibum]

Seems pretty on point that a number of armchair quarterbacks on a fantasy football message board would have no problem critiquing one of the most successful business owners alive today.

Anyone posting in this thread has achieved 1,000th (at best) what Zuckerberg has.

I think the same thing of people that called Musk an idiot when he bought Twitter.

To quote the movie, The Social Network, "If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook."

I've noticed people on the internet think more highly of themselves and their opinions than they ought.

I don't think someone working construction, grocery store or similar is below me. I don't think they are any less of a person because of lower pay with opinions less valuable than mine because they make less money or have not had the career I have had.

Nor do I think tech elites are beyond critique because they are perfect people.

Just because someone gets power they are not a good person, in fact just the opposite may be the case here, maybe Zuck got more power than he should of because of unscrupulous activity.


signed,
1/1000 the person of zuck i guess.

Not what I said, like at all.

This is specifically about his ability to lead a company. I'm sure you are a fine person and I'm pretty confident that Zuckerburg is not a good person.

People that have never lead a company say Zuckerburg or Musk or any number of high achieving business owners are bad business owners. It reminds me when some 5'9" overweight guy who couldn't even make his varsity football team calls an NFL QB "garbage" because he threw 3 picks in a game or sealed a playoff loss with a bad throw.

If the business does tons of bad things, i think the person leading the business owner is a terrible business owner regardless of how much money they make for the business. This is especially true when the profit margin was a result of being cheap in the areas that lead to said disasters.

It would be like if Toyota quit putting any safety equipment in their cars and many deaths/injuries resulted from them being cheap. The ceo should not be celebrated for increasing profit margin at the expense of public safety. However that is what people are doing with Zuck.

signed,
5'9" overweight guy who didnt make varsity

 

[RCon]

Seems pretty on point that a number of armchair quarterbacks on a fantasy football message board would have no problem critiquing one of the most successful business owners alive today.

Anyone posting in this thread has achieved 1,000th (at best) what Zuckerberg has.

I think the same thing of people that called Musk an idiot when he bought Twitter.

To quote the movie, The Social Network, "If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook."

I've noticed people on the internet think more highly of themselves and their opinions than they ought.

Haven't almost all those who critiqued specifically made their critiques about ethics and morals?

 

[Jayrod]

Seems pretty on point that a number of armchair quarterbacks on a fantasy football message board would have no problem critiquing one of the most successful business owners alive today.

Anyone posting in this thread has achieved 1,000th (at best) what Zuckerberg has.

I think the same thing of people that called Musk an idiot when he bought Twitter.

To quote the movie, The Social Network, "If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook."

I've noticed people on the internet think more highly of themselves and their opinions than they ought.

Haven't almost all those who critiqued specifically made their critiques about ethics and morals?

Not sure. I didn't read the thread.

But the 20 people that voted in the poll that rated him from "good" to "terrible" (57%) seem to think he is not good at leading a company.

That seems very comical to me considering his success in doing just that. I guess you can argue that he has done "unethical" things to achieve what he has and rank him low because of that?

Michael Jordan was an absolute jerk, bad teammate and by all accounts a horrible human being. But I still consider him the greatest basketball player of all time because of what he did on the court. I feel like Zuckerberg is in that same category; horrible person, heck of a businessman.

 

[RCon]

Seems pretty on point that a number of armchair quarterbacks on a fantasy football message board would have no problem critiquing one of the most successful business owners alive today.

Anyone posting in this thread has achieved 1,000th (at best) what Zuckerberg has.

I think the same thing of people that called Musk an idiot when he bought Twitter.

To quote the movie, The Social Network, "If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook."

I've noticed people on the internet think more highly of themselves and their opinions than they ought.

Haven't almost all those who critiqued specifically made their critiques about ethics and morals?

Not sure. I didn't read the thread.

But the 20 people that voted in the poll that rated him from "good" to "terrible" (57%) seem to think he is not good at leading a company.

That seems very comical to me considering his success in doing just that. I guess you can argue that he has done "unethical" things to achieve what he has and rank him low because of that?

Michael Jordan was an absolute jerk, bad teammate and by all accounts a horrible human being. But I still consider him the greatest basketball player of all time because of what he did on the court. I feel like Zuckerberg is in that same category; horrible person, heck of a businessman.

Then you're pretty much on the same page with everyone else. If the criteria is solely "profit at all costs", then almost everyone rated him top tier. If the criteria involves ethical concerns and moral obligations to society at large, many rated him poorly.

Personally, I think ethical concerns and moral obligations to society at large should be a significant factor when we consider who is successful and not.

 

[Grahamburn]

Voted great. Would go to elite if I knew how things ended up with Rashida Jones. Did she accept his friend request?!

 

[MTskibum]

Seems pretty on point that a number of armchair quarterbacks on a fantasy football message board would have no problem critiquing one of the most successful business owners alive today.

Anyone posting in this thread has achieved 1,000th (at best) what Zuckerberg has.

I think the same thing of people that called Musk an idiot when he bought Twitter.

To quote the movie, The Social Network, "If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook."

I've noticed people on the internet think more highly of themselves and their opinions than they ought.

Haven't almost all those who critiqued specifically made their critiques about ethics and morals?

Not sure. I didn't read the thread.

But the 20 people that voted in the poll that rated him from "good" to "terrible" (57%) seem to think he is not good at leading a company.

That seems very comical to me considering his success in doing just that. I guess you can argue that he has done "unethical" things to achieve what he has and rank him low because of that?

Michael Jordan was an absolute jerk, bad teammate and by all accounts a horrible human being. But I still consider him the greatest basketball player of all time because of what he did on the court. I feel like Zuckerberg is in that same category; horrible person, heck of a businessman.

Jordan may be a jerk but you are comparing apples to oranges, Jordan's onfield play never managed to displace 700,000 people from their home country. Jordan didnt take all of our data, change the terms and conditions after he had that data, and then use it to profit on.

Jordan didn't profit off of being a jerk, where as Zuck had a much higher profit margin because of his unscrupulous behavior. Content moderation at scale costs money.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Seems pretty on point that a number of armchair quarterbacks on a fantasy football message board would have no problem critiquing one of the most successful business owners alive today.

Anyone posting in this thread has achieved 1,000th (at best) what Zuckerberg has.

I think the same thing of people that called Musk an idiot when he bought Twitter.

To quote the movie, The Social Network, "If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook."

I've noticed people on the internet think more highly of themselves and their opinions than they ought.

Haven't almost all those who critiqued specifically made their critiques about ethics and morals?

Not sure. I didn't read the thread.

But the 20 people that voted in the poll that rated him from "good" to "terrible" (57%) seem to think he is not good at leading a company.

That seems very comical to me considering his success in doing just that. I guess you can argue that he has done "unethical" things to achieve what he has and rank him low because of that?

Michael Jordan was an absolute jerk, bad teammate and by all accounts a horrible human being. But I still consider him the greatest basketball player of all time because of what he did on the court. I feel like Zuckerberg is in that same category; horrible person, heck of a businessman.

Then you're pretty much on the same page with everyone else. If the criteria is solely "profit at all costs", then almost everyone rated him top tier. If the criteria involves ethical concerns and moral obligations to society at large, many rated him poorly.

Personally, I think ethical concerns and moral obligations to society at large should be a significant factor when we consider who is successful and not.

Although it’s clear he’s crossed the line ethically, I’m not sure he’s evil, or pursued profit at all costs. Its possible he didn’t foresee the consequences of all of his actions.

He’s not a paragon of virtue, for sure. But as I’ve already stated, his effectiveness as a leader is undeniable.

For those who believe ethics is essential to effective leadership, who would you classify as elite leaders?

 

[Dan Lambskin]

Seems pretty on point that a number of armchair quarterbacks on a fantasy football message board would have no problem critiquing one of the most successful business owners alive today.

Anyone posting in this thread has achieved 1,000th (at best) what Zuckerberg has.

I think the same thing of people that called Musk an idiot when he bought Twitter.

To quote the movie, The Social Network, "If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook."

I've noticed people on the internet think more highly of themselves and their opinions than they ought.

Haven't almost all those who critiqued specifically made their critiques about ethics and morals?

Not sure. I didn't read the thread.

But the 20 people that voted in the poll that rated him from "good" to "terrible" (57%) seem to think he is not good at leading a company.

That seems very comical to me considering his success in doing just that. I guess you can argue that he has done "unethical" things to achieve what he has and rank him low because of that?

Michael Jordan was an absolute jerk, bad teammate and by all accounts a horrible human being. But I still consider him the greatest basketball player of all time because of what he did on the court. I feel like Zuckerberg is in that same category; horrible person, heck of a businessman.

Then you're pretty much on the same page with everyone else. If the criteria is solely "profit at all costs", then almost everyone rated him top tier. If the criteria involves ethical concerns and moral obligations to society at large, many rated him poorly.

Personally, I think ethical concerns and moral obligations to society at large should be a significant factor when we consider who is successful and not.

Although it’s clear he’s crossed the line ethically, I’m not sure he’s evil, or has pursued profit at all costs. Its possible he didn’t foresee the consequences of all of his actions.

He’s not a paragon of virtue, for sure. But as I’ve already stated, his effectiveness as a leader is undeniable.

For those who believe ethics is essential to effective leadership, who would you classify as elite leaders?

Jennifer Rumsey? Cummins is usually at the top of the Most Ethical Companies list
Granted she’s only been in the role a few years but first one that came to mind

 

[uwillbsoon]

Seems pretty on point that a number of armchair quarterbacks on a fantasy football message board would have no problem critiquing one of the most successful business owners alive today.

Anyone posting in this thread has achieved 1,000th (at best) what Zuckerberg has.

I think the same thing of people that called Musk an idiot when he bought Twitter.

To quote the movie, The Social Network, "If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook."

I've noticed people on the internet think more highly of themselves and their opinions than they ought.

Haven't almost all those who critiqued specifically made their critiques about ethics and morals?

Not sure. I didn't read the thread.

But the 20 people that voted in the poll that rated him from "good" to "terrible" (57%) seem to think he is not good at leading a company.

That seems very comical to me considering his success in doing just that. I guess you can argue that he has done "unethical" things to achieve what he has and rank him low because of that?

Michael Jordan was an absolute jerk, bad teammate and by all accounts a horrible human being. But I still consider him the greatest basketball player of all time because of what he did on the court. I feel like Zuckerberg is in that same category; horrible person, heck of a businessman.

Then you're pretty much on the same page with everyone else. If the criteria is solely "profit at all costs", then almost everyone rated him top tier. If the criteria involves ethical concerns and moral obligations to society at large, many rated him poorly.

Personally, I think ethical concerns and moral obligations to society at large should be a significant factor when we consider who is successful and not.

Although it’s clear he’s crossed the line ethically, I’m not sure he’s evil, or has pursued profit at all costs. Its possible he didn’t foresee the consequences of all of his actions.

He’s not a paragon of virtue, for sure. But as I’ve already stated, his effectiveness as a leader is undeniable.

For those who believe ethics is essential to effective leadership, who would you classify as elite leaders?

Mostly agree with this. I forget who it was that knows him. Basically said he's not immoral. He's amoral - he's just not concerned with right or wrong.

Move fast and break things and all.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

How are you judging effectiveness? Shareholder value? Employee engagement? Something else?

You can use whatever definition you like. For me, I think it's an overall look at how well and effectively he leads the company.

By leaving measurements open-ended you've both increased short-term engagement and erased all doubt how this thread will end **delete**

Not really. It's of average engagement it looks like and I don't have any idea how the thread will end. Why would you assume it would end? I asked the question about how effective a leader people thought he was. If you and sparky don't like the question, I'm sorry. I do think it will be of interest to some people.

I don't know of anyone else around here that has sparky as part of their name, so I am going to assume you're talking about me. I haven't even weighed in on this thread and have made ZERO comment on it. I just came across it a couple minutes ago, began reading and see this. Do you even read the threads?

You left a thumbs up like emoji on the post I replied to: "By leaving measurements open-ended you've both increased short-term engagement and erased all doubt how this thread will end **delete**"

You're being serious?

Yes. I don't have time to waste otherwise.

You said, "I haven't even weighed in on this thread and have made ZERO comment on it. I just came across it a couple minutes ago, began reading and see this. Do you even read the threads?"

While leaving a thumbsup like emoji on the post I was talking about.

Isn't putting words in peoples' mouths frowned upon here? Maybe ask more questions instead of assuming so much? Or don't, but please don't put words in my mouth. My reaction had NOTHING to do with the question. The questions was pretty standard boilerplate stuff in my opinion. I would have reacted to the question if I had an issue with it or liked it either way.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Seems pretty on point that a number of armchair quarterbacks on a fantasy football message board would have no problem critiquing one of the most successful business owners alive today.

Anyone posting in this thread has achieved 1,000th (at best) what Zuckerberg has.

I think the same thing of people that called Musk an idiot when he bought Twitter.

To quote the movie, The Social Network, "If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook."

I've noticed people on the internet think more highly of themselves and their opinions than they ought.

Haven't almost all those who critiqued specifically made their critiques about ethics and morals?

Not sure. I didn't read the thread.

But the 20 people that voted in the poll that rated him from "good" to "terrible" (57%) seem to think he is not good at leading a company.

That seems very comical to me considering his success in doing just that. I guess you can argue that he has done "unethical" things to achieve what he has and rank him low because of that?

Michael Jordan was an absolute jerk, bad teammate and by all accounts a horrible human being. But I still consider him the greatest basketball player of all time because of what he did on the court. I feel like Zuckerberg is in that same category; horrible person, heck of a businessman.

Then you're pretty much on the same page with everyone else. If the criteria is solely "profit at all costs", then almost everyone rated him top tier. If the criteria involves ethical concerns and moral obligations to society at large, many rated him poorly.

Personally, I think ethical concerns and moral obligations to society at large should be a significant factor when we consider who is successful and not.

Although it’s clear he’s crossed the line ethically, I’m not sure he’s evil, or has pursued profit at all costs. Its possible he didn’t foresee the consequences of all of his actions.

He’s not a paragon of virtue, for sure. But as I’ve already stated, his effectiveness as a leader is undeniable.

For those who believe ethics is essential to effective leadership, who would you classify as elite leaders?

Jennifer Rumsey? Cummins is usually at the top of the Most Ethical Companies list
Granted she’s only been in the role a few years but first one that came to mind

No idea who she is, but I’ve always thought Yvonne Chouinard ran Patagonia in a way that was both ethical and profitable.

 

[Joe Bryant]

How are you judging effectiveness? Shareholder value? Employee engagement? Something else?

You can use whatever definition you like. For me, I think it's an overall look at how well and effectively he leads the company.

By leaving measurements open-ended you've both increased short-term engagement and erased all doubt how this thread will end **delete**

Not really. It's of average engagement it looks like and I don't have any idea how the thread will end. Why would you assume it would end? I asked the question about how effective a leader people thought he was. If you and sparky don't like the question, I'm sorry. I do think it will be of interest to some people.

I don't know of anyone else around here that has sparky as part of their name, so I am going to assume you're talking about me. I haven't even weighed in on this thread and have made ZERO comment on it. I just came across it a couple minutes ago, began reading and see this. Do you even read the threads?

You left a thumbs up like emoji on the post I replied to: "By leaving measurements open-ended you've both increased short-term engagement and erased all doubt how this thread will end **delete**"

You're being serious?

Yes. I don't have time to waste otherwise.

You said, "I haven't even weighed in on this thread and have made ZERO comment on it. I just came across it a couple minutes ago, began reading and see this. Do you even read the threads?"

While leaving a thumbsup like emoji on the post I was talking about.

Isn't putting words in peoples' mouths frowned upon here? Maybe ask more questions instead of assuming so much? Or don't, but please don't put words in my mouth. My reaction had NOTHING to do with the question. The questions was pretty standard boilerplate stuff in my opinion. I would have reacted to the question if I had an issue with it or liked it either way.

I don't think it's too much to assume that when someone posts the "like" emoji after a post, it's not too much of a reach to assume the poster "liked" the post.

Regardless, you're welcome to have the last word here.

I'll get back to the actual topic on Zuckerberg.

 

[Judge Smails]

To me his biggest achievement is not standing pat with Facebook and becoming irrelevant over time. He’s not MySpace. He evolved and invested big time. Acquired key assets that changed the trajectory of the company.

 

[ChiefD]

Seems pretty on point that a number of armchair quarterbacks on a fantasy football message board would have no problem critiquing one of the most successful business owners alive today.

Anyone posting in this thread has achieved 1,000th (at best) what Zuckerberg has.

I think the same thing of people that called Musk an idiot when he bought Twitter.

To quote the movie, The Social Network, "If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook."

I've noticed people on the internet think more highly of themselves and their opinions than they ought.

I don't think someone working construction, grocery store or similar is below me. I don't think they are any less of a person because of lower pay with opinions less valuable than mine because they make less money or have not had the career I have had.

Nor do I think tech elites are beyond critique because they are perfect people.

Just because someone gets power they are not a good person, in fact just the opposite may be the case here, maybe Zuck got more power than he should of because of unscrupulous activity.


signed,
1/1000 the person of zuck i guess.

Not what I said, like at all.

This is specifically about his ability to lead a company. I'm sure you are a fine person and I'm pretty confident that Zuckerburg is not a good person.

People that have never lead a company say Zuckerburg or Musk or any number of high achieving business owners are bad business owners. It reminds me when some 5'9" overweight guy who couldn't even make his varsity football team calls an NFL QB "garbage" because he threw 3 picks in a game or sealed a playoff loss with a bad throw.

If the business does tons of bad things, i think the person leading the business owner is a terrible business owner regardless of how much money they make for the business. This is especially true when the profit margin was a result of being cheap in the areas that lead to said disasters.

It would be like if Toyota quit putting any safety equipment in their cars and many deaths/injuries resulted from them being cheap. The ceo should not be celebrated for increasing profit margin at the expense of public safety. However that is what people are doing with Zuck.

signed,
5'9" overweight guy who didnt make varsity

Dang.

I always dreamt you were taller.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

How are you judging effectiveness? Shareholder value? Employee engagement? Something else?

You can use whatever definition you like. For me, I think it's an overall look at how well and effectively he leads the company.

By leaving measurements open-ended you've both increased short-term engagement and erased all doubt how this thread will end **delete**

Not really. It's of average engagement it looks like and I don't have any idea how the thread will end. Why would you assume it would end? I asked the question about how effective a leader people thought he was. If you and sparky don't like the question, I'm sorry. I do think it will be of interest to some people.

I don't know of anyone else around here that has sparky as part of their name, so I am going to assume you're talking about me. I haven't even weighed in on this thread and have made ZERO comment on it. I just came across it a couple minutes ago, began reading and see this. Do you even read the threads?

You left a thumbs up like emoji on the post I replied to: "By leaving measurements open-ended you've both increased short-term engagement and erased all doubt how this thread will end **delete**"

You're being serious?

Yes. I don't have time to waste otherwise.

You said, "I haven't even weighed in on this thread and have made ZERO comment on it. I just came across it a couple minutes ago, began reading and see this. Do you even read the threads?"

While leaving a thumbsup like emoji on the post I was talking about.

Isn't putting words in peoples' mouths frowned upon here? Maybe ask more questions instead of assuming so much? Or don't, but please don't put words in my mouth. My reaction had NOTHING to do with the question. The questions was pretty standard boilerplate stuff in my opinion. I would have reacted to the question if I had an issue with it or liked it either way.

I don't think it's too much to assume that when someone posts the "like" emoji after a post, it's not too much of a reach to assume the poster "liked" the post.

Regardless, you're welcome to have the last word here.

I'll get back to the actual topic on Zuckerberg.

Do as I say, not as I do. Got it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

To me his biggest achievement is not standing pat with Facebook and becoming irrelevant over time. He’s not MySpace. He evolved and invested big time. Acquired key assets that changed the trajectory of the company.

This is a great point.