hmaly,
<<Jamoke Re..<<<In Jerry's, I would think that the primary goal of a CEO is to promote the interests of his company, rather than dismissing whoever happens to piss him off personally.>>
You responded,
<<Several posts back I asked for links where anyone could justify Dougs argument against Jerry. The only link I got was this.>>
Hehe, sometimes things just drop out of the sky into your lap - check this out, as of today: <http://www.semibiznews.com/story/OEG20001102S0002>, part of which says,
<<During the press conference to release the annual forecast from the Semiconductor Industry Association, Sanders also blasted the "jerks" and "idiots" who he says have confused slowing growth rates with the peaking of revenues.>>
But let's give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that such an outburst by Jerry is not the result of some personality pattern, but an aberration in thinking brought on by - who knows? - maybe Intellibees slipped him some very bad drugs just before this interview that made him say these things, against his will and against his normally polite character. <g>
This would put us back at your claim that no one can provide more than 1 link which shows Jerry being either angry, arrogant, abusive, dismissive, etc. I don't have the time or the will to go back to every CC, every interview, every news report, every press release, and glean this evidence that there's a pattern of problems with his behavior and pronouncements. And, given my unwillingness to spend that kind of time, it is possible, that were I to do so, that I would find that I couldn't find the specific quotes to substantiate that claim, and my impression is mistaken. But consider the circumstantial evidence which suggest that such a search would yield results:
Why do I, and apparently, a lot of other folks, have this impression of Jerry as arrogant and abrasive? Are we all sharing the same drugs that apparently got ahold of Jerry this morning?
Why does there seem to be such bad blood between Jerry and the analytic community - do you really believe that it's all based on false impressions and/or that the rancor is solely generated by analysts? Without it being fueled from Jerry's side their motive would be .... what exactly?
Why are there so many anecdotal stories that support this view of Jerry's behavior patterns? In the last day, there was one from Ephinephrine, and another from someone else (Ephinephrine? John Petzinger? - sorry guys, my memory isn't that sharp) that spoke of AMD's IR/PR management being keenly aware of the negative effect that Jerry has in terms of hurting the company with 'loose cannon' (and that *not* an exact quote) statements.
If making exaggerated/misleading/outright false statements is not a part of this pattern of problematic behavior, what were all those lawsuits against AMD about last year?
Your post did help me to clarify my thinking, and yes, perhaps the word 'vendetta' is a bit inaccurate, as it implies that anger is the main problematic characteristic in Jerry's approach to relationships with important people outside the company. Upon reflection, I think it'd be more accurate to say that my impression of Jerry is that he tends to be arrogant, abrasive, and dismissive of others that he disagrees with, which at times seems to involve disrespect or abuse of others - which, as I've pointed out, simply hurts AMD for all the reasons I've outlined.
I also wanted to respond to your dismissing my point about a helpful (to the company) stance a CEO might take in dealing with FUD. You responded,
<<According to you,the CEO should tell the analyst what he wanted to hear and isn't that what that analyst wanted to hear. >>
In previous posts, I've pointed out your tendency to become highly offended when you feel others are misinterpreting or twisting your words, but you seem to have no compunctions in doing so yourself if it suits your purposes. Let me expose this hypocrisy by reminding you of the exact quote from me that you were responding to:
<< The best CEO's I've seen (e.g. Mike Ruettgers of EMC) show a good deal of patience and restraint in responding to FUD, whether such FUD is through ignorance or provocation. If through ignorance, such CEOs seem to have the ability to avoid responding as though it's a personal wound, and use it as an opportunity to educate the individual or the community about the facts - a smart tactic, as it opens the possibility of making 'converts' of your skeptics - especially when time after time, they come to see that you can be relied on to tell a 'straight story', and they've been fed bull by other sources. ....
(Jerry's)...ego and stubborness seem to blind him to the basic facts that all business is made up of relationships, and disrespecting or dismissing others is bad business, as it puts settling scores above promoting your business, especially when those others are in a postion to significantly help or hurt you. *This is different than "sucking up" to analysts - it assumes taking an educative stance, rather than a retalitory one, and keeping one's business interests above one's personal feelings about a situation - a quality I think is both utilitarian and admirable*.>>
How you get that I'm advocating "telling the analyst what he wants to hear" from that is beyond me - unless you're either purposively misunderstanding, or have access to the same drugs that seemed to have influenced Jerry this morning <g>
Lastly, I wonder if on this one topic we ought to call it quits at this point. I think both our positions are well established, and we'll just have to disagree on this one. I don't want this interpreted as my backing away from my statements, or being unwilling to support them with what I think are valid arguments - my guess is that the thread is probably bored by the overkill we seem to be on the verge of at this point. If you like, we could continue the debate privately, if there's some benefit to that. Or, if I'm wrong and the thread would like to see more discussion of this, I'm open to that. And I'm also not telling you to simply "go away" - my guess is that we'll have other, fresh topics for debate in the future. |
