Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford
Not only is it relevant, it's basically all that matters. We're talking about where tech companies put the head office. Why does it matter where Tech Company X puts its Milwaukee ad sales team?
Sorry, don't buy it. This is probably the first time on SSP I've heard anyone claim that HQ location decisionmaking is irrelevant to executive location preferences.
|
Your lack of how enterprise technology companies are run is glaring (Ad Sales?! come on...). I'll give you examples of 3 companies i'm intimately familiar with:
Salesforce: Yes, Marc Benioff is the CEO and is based in SF, but the people there who are really running the day to day of that business, Keith Block, President/COO (based in Boston) and Tony Fernicola, Head of Global Sales (Based in NYC) are not based at HQ, and business decisions are not coming from someone physically sitting in their corporate office.
Oracle: Again, Mark Hurd may be based in the Bay Area, but most of the business is run by the different vertical leads, only a handful of which are based in the Bay Area. The SVP of my org (who leads 7000 employees) is based in Reston, VA. Of the 7 or so orgs within Oracle NA, only 1 is based in Redwood City.
LinkedIn: While HQ'd in Mountain View, the guy running the day to day (Mike Gamson) is based in Chicago, 3 of his direct reports are in Chicago as well. Their San Fran office (NOT Mountain View) has much of their other leadership.
These are just 3 examples; it's 2017 many people don't need to be geographically located in a specific office, even those leading multi billion dollar companies.