If I had to bet on whether Elon will pull through and Twitter ultimately succeeds, I’d probably still bet on the success case. Social networks are surprisingly durable.
Still, there is a KNOWN playbook for how to take over a dysfunctional company and quickly turn it around.
🧵
Plenty of hedge funds know how to do this, but it was probably most famously put into practice when Carlos Ghosn took over Nissan in 1999, executing the “Nissan Revival Plan” and returning the company to profitability within a year and reducing its debt by 50% within 3 years.
(Ghosn was so incredibly successful at this that his influence grew to encompass MULTIPLE car companies, which freaked out the Japanese, who then conspired in 2018 to have him arrested and accused of accounting irregularities...
… culminating in a dramatic escape from Japanese house arrest assisted by an ex-special-forces soldier, but that’s a story for another time)
I spent the early part of my career reading biographies and corporate turnaround stories for fun, so I’m familiar with the process. That’s what I’ll describe in this thread.
Beware, it is pretty cold-blooded, but you are taking a company that’s dying a slow death and performing a radical intervention, so extreme measures are necessary no matter what.
First, there IS a degree of immediate decapitation required.
There are two sets of people you replace right away on Day 1:
1) All of the senior execs reporting to the CEO who are known to have had a long working relationship with him, e.g. more than 1-2 years.
2) The HR department
I’ll explain both.
The first one is pretty obvious: You need to ensure loyalty. No matter how much one thinks that people can be swayed by the logic of a better plan or new future, you need deep loyalty to execute a complex and difficult plan.
Having your company taken over and your boss fired is an emotional event for even the best people, and senior staff who are (at best) conflicted or (at worst) subversive will slow you down. So you remove them immediately.
Don’t worry, people like that land on their feet. They are highly-paid execs. It’s not like closing down the factory and putting line workers who need to feed their families out on the street (which you may do later, and THAT sucks).
A couple senior-level execs might be ok to keep around if they are new, or known to be actively sympathetic to the new direction. Typically they will backchannel to you before the first day and let you know this.
Next, you need to replace almost everyone in the HR department.
Why? Because the HR department is the mechanism you employ to hire and fire, which you will need control over without having to doubt if they’re going to drag their feet or subvert you.
You need to have your new senior HR execs ready to go on the first day to take over the department, because they are the ones who process the terminations for the execs you are firing!
And, since you will be recruiting new execs to fill critical positions, you need an HR staff aligned with your recruiting priorities and culture. It’s unlikely the old one will fit that (because that’s how the company became what it was in the first place).
What you don’t do is immediately terminate swaths of other personnel, especially ones involved in key production or even support roles.
Here is why: in almost EVERY company, there is often a lot that’s known internally that’s not known externally.
In some companies, the public perception of how the company works may be totally at odds with how the company actually works. Sometimes this is even deliberate, or a fundamental consequence of the space the company operates in.
For example, during my time at Facebook, external perception was that FB cared not a whit for privacy and didn’t understand privacy concerns.
The reality was that inside the company, people understood privacy issues VERY deeply, and wrestled continuously with nearly-intractable privacy issues, trying to formulate product and policy solutions that would satisfy a very complex and contradictory universe of user needs.
In this case, it was a consequence of the space the company existed in, i.e. most people don’t really understand privacy. For more on this subtopic:
I encountered this situation again when I first took over at Reddit: upon going in, I had no clue whatsoever of the actual, real issues facing the company. I was stunned when I received my first “reading in” briefing from then-General Manager @hueypriest
External “data” about a company is often a mix of politically- and commercially-motivated opinions, deliberate PR (by the company and competitors), and pure hearsay and fabrications by stock traders. You can’t rely on it to form an accurate view of how a company works.
All you know going in are the financial results (e.g. the company isn’t making money), but you don’t know exactly why. So you don’t know who to keep and who to dump on Day 1.
The above groups MUST be immediately replaced only because they are necessary for you to act quickly and comprehensively.
So how you figure it out?
Well, it turns out that typically in a dysfunctional company, there are plenty of people who know what the company is doing wrong.
Sometimes a company isn’t performing because there’s a small cabal of powerful managers who are upholding certain decisions or policies, and they just need to be removed. You have to figure out if this is the case, or if it’s something else.
So you embark on a listening tour. You see new CEOs do this all the time. Schedule meetings with EVERY front-line team all over the company, and you just talk to them, and you ask them how the company can improve.
Front-line people are not politically-motivated actors. They’re just regular people doing their jobs, and collectively they have a pretty good view of things that’s untainted by ambition or politics.
You can meet with them as a team, with their line managers, but without any other senior/middle management present. You just listen. Bring along a couple of your own staff to help remember things, and then debrief and write down notes afterwards.
(Do NOT record the meeting. That sends the wrong message and will make people afraid)
This might take a few weeks. Your days are full of meetings. For a global multinational, it’s often a “100 day global listening tour.” You’ve seen this happen when a new CEO comes in. That’s what this is. Tell the teams that if they think of anything else to email you later too.
After you do this, you will have a very good “vector field” of where the problematic areas of the company are, which people or teams are jamming things up, and what the real challenges are that need to be surmounted.
While every team may be self-serving, there will be plenty of peer teams who make it clear whether another team is truly useless or counterproductive, or merely under-appreciated. In any case, now you have REAL intel from insiders.
If at this point there is some clearly problematic person, people, or org that needs to go, you can cut them. You are much more likely to have success in surgically targeting the cancer at this point.
Next, if there are people (like senior managers) you can’t get rid of but need to be upgraded or routed around, you do the following trick to subvert them:
You create new cross-functional teams comprised of line managers or teams underneath them, and charge them with identifying and implementing key improvements, and have them report their progress directly to you.
The “vector field” you’ve formed from your listening tour should help you shape exactly who and what departments you want to ask to contribute people to these new cross-functional teams.
Carlos Ghosn did this to great effect at Nissan, especially as Nissan had many senior executives and in Japan, seniority rules and strong traditions prevent you from just dumping useless senior executives.
The senior executives who can’t be removed aren’t very dynamic people (or they’d have led a turnaround already), so you can just stall them by doing business-as-usual process meetings and keeping them out of the way of the junior turnaround teams with rock-fetches and busywork.
Those teams, eager to prove themselves and seeing opportunities, will be motivated to work hard, so you give them the urgent timelines and hard deadlines.
Give these teams a deadline for executing a set of key improvements, then repeat. A lot can be done in a few months, and you can run this cycle multiple times a year and yield major improvements within a year’s time.
As they work, new leaders will emerge, and weak leaders will fall apart from the dynamism (some people get comfortable and when things get shaken up, they self-destruct). Now you have your new crop of internal leaders to promote.
One of the advantages of this process is that you don’t need to do things like explicitly “rewrite company culture.”
A lot of times when new management comes in, they have a culture clash with the existing company culture. This causes a lot of “organ rejection.”
By empowering the employees and line managers, you are saying to them, “Live up to the true values of this company, and make it great again!”
Most employees believe in the values of the company (or they wouldn’t be there), and the most motivated employees who take up the challenge usually do.
Of course, the truth is that it’s all about how the values are really interpreted and practiced, but that doesn’t really matter:
Motivated by the desire to do better, employees will re-interpret the values to serve the new better ways of doing things, and feel like they are upholding them, even strengthening them. They will feel like new management is MORE aligned with the “old” values.
Finally, once things are running really well and you’ve promoted a new set of internal leaders who are driving this ongoing transformation and the success is tangible, you can remove the remaining deadweight.
Now you know. Go forth, corporate raider.
And please only use this new knowledge I’ve given you for GOOD.
If you liked this thread, follow me for more spicy takes on the tech industry and REAL TALK about solving climate change like this article in TIME by Tom Crowther (@TWCrowther) about restoring forests and biodiversity!
I feel like there is an ancient desire common to all peoples, stretching back through history. Our ancestors knew the fundamental value of water megaprojects: land otherwise dry, but made fertile by applying patient labor, putting into place crucial water-moving infrastructure.
Our planet actually has lots of water. The modern notion of "abundance mentality" is key here: are you willing to do the work to bring water from where it exists to where you need it?
If you can, you can be wealthy. Our willingness to do so at whatever level our civlization's then-current technology allows is the most basic expression of abundance mentality: we can have water, we can have food, we can be wealthy - if we are willing to do the work and build the systems to bring the water.
There is, literally, enough water for everyone to thrive.
Moral hazard or not, I now feel the climate situation is bad enough that we should begin scalability work for stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) immediately.
This is not the same conclusion I would have had even two years ago, but the increase in ocean temperature and extreme climate events indicates a trend that will rapidly get worse unless we are able to take global-scale action within the next 1-5 years, and SAI is the only feasible one.
For those whose initial reaction is opposed, there are a few key things you should be aware of:
- One common fear is that this will be bad for crop yields. I thought this too, but the existing data from volcanic eruptions (which have similar effect) indicated a neutral to positive (!) productivity effect on crops.
- This is not "polluting the air with sulphur." The amount of SO2 needed to significantly induce cooling is on the order of 1% of the SO2 pollution we currently emit, and we would be injecting it into the upper atmosphere. Existing SO2 pollution occurs much lower down, so moving it much higher would likely be better, in terms of health/pollution effects.
- The cessation of sulphur emissions from ships since the 2020 ban on those fuels has given us strong evidence that the prior SO2 emitted by those ships had an (unintended) anti-warming effect on the Atlantic shipping lanes, which is now warming rapidly. While it was also unhealthy pollution, it gives us strong real-world data that this would work at large scale, and we can do it without the harmful pollution side effects by injecting it in the higher atmosphere.
At this point I believe the facts now this conclusion should be relatively uncontroversial if one is practical about looking for solutions.
I am the "tree guy" and in 2020 I would not have supported this, as I felt the world could move quickly to a large-scale reforestation and land restoration effort to make significant progress by 2030. But pandemic, wars, and recession have prevented this (along with good ol' inertia), and warming has accelerated.
Would successful implementation of SAI reduce incentive to move away from fossil fuels? It is a very real risk, yes. In fact, I personally think it is likely.
But the hard brutal reality is that the heating trends right now are very dire, and immediate action to reduce the heating are necessary.
We must begin scaling SAI immediately precisely so that things like reforestation and other carbon capture solutions have time for implementation, which in turn buys time for decarbonization of our economies.
If you want to support this, @MakeSunsets seems to have highest ROI and most scalable method of doing this. You can donate to them or utilize their DIY guide, as SAI can be done in a decentralized way.
Most of the copy on their website talks about it as “cooling power equivalent to trees” which is really scientifically awful if you are STEM-literate, but I talked to them and they do it because (as measured in donation effectiveness), it drives the most action.
They have done the science properly under the hood, so it is just part of the unfortunate reality of climate where you need to speak differently to audiences with different levels of sophistication. One of the things I like about them is that they have very good telemetry and measurement so they can report accurately on what they’re doing.
The advantage of using high-altitude balloons is that they are cheap and scalable to produce, rather than needing to design-build expensive new aircraft to deploy it, which was how SAI was originally conceived.
If you just want to support tree-planting (forest restoration), you can still send money to terraformation.org. We will direct it to maximally catalytic tree-planting (native biodiverse forest restoration) efforts.
If you wish to invest larger amounts, you can contact us and we can arrange for you to fund any number of projects that we have coming through our forest creation accelerator.
Conspiracy theorists who keep saying there’s “no way” the hurricane could have intensified so much without some human cause are so close to getting it.
I mean, literally there was a decades-long conspiracy and people have been trying to tell you about it
"As early as 1959, oil industry executives understood the connection between burning fossil fuels and climate change. Soon thereafter, industry scientists confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt that the burning of fossil fuels contributed to anthropogenic climate change. In response, oil companies scrambled to promulgate climate change denial and disinformation in order to avoid government regulation. It was not until the late 1990s and early 2000s that oil companies began publicly acknowledging the scientific consensus on climate change and responded by promoting market-based solutions to mitigating emissions.
Popular concern for anthropogenic climate change did not emerge until the late 1980s, but formerly secret industry documents that are now available through the Climate Files database reveal that oil industry scientists were raising concern about oil’s impacts on the climate as early as the 1950s and 1960s."
There's this hypothetical climate scenario where a summer heat wave hits a city, temp is high enough that:
- internal combustion engines don't work
- HVAC is overloaded and also breaks
- because people can't leave or be cooled, thousands or millions die in the span of a week
Given the non-linear rise in high temp records, I actually think it is within the realm of possibility that this occurs as soon as NEXT SUMMER.
I hate to bring it up because it's going to sound like fear-mongering, but I promise it's not.
I've always thought of "deadly-too-hot" scenarios as being vaguely further in the future, but in looking at trends and what we've seen this summer, it may be closer than we imagine.
Here is a graph showing surface air temps. The increases in high temps seems to be non-linear (i.e. accelerating).
It's worth noting that the reduction in sulphur emissions from ships is partially responsible for this jump (IYKYK).
Here is the administrative proceeding from the SEC. I recall much of this personally in the news at the time. If we steelman PG/YC side's comments, maybe the news narrative was controlled by Sacks, but official docs from the SEC are another thing: