
Born in the ’70s: Jack Ma’s Memo to Alibaba Employees on Management Shuffle - carlchenet
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/05/07/born-in-the-70s-jack-mas-memo-to-alibaba-employees-on-management-shuffle/?mod=ST1
======
binxbolling
This total commitment to talent development is pretty inspiring—regardless of
whether or not I'd agree/recommend this exact strategy or whether it
ultimately works for Alibaba. Succession planning is hard and time-consuming,
but the potential rewards are huge. A real passion for developing employees is
also, to me, a much better differentiator than the number of foosball tables
and espresso machines your company has.

------
eellpp
> As a result of our effort in the past few years, 45% of our management team
> are in the post-70 generation, the post-80 generation make up 52%, while the
> post-60 generation only accounts for 3%. We are also fortunate to have 3,000
> young people who were born in the 90s.

Basically they have declared management retirement/retrenchment age to 45 with
a positive spin of culture etc.

~~~
ww520
The large percentage of younger people in advance positions might be unique
here since China only started to develop its economic in the early 80's. The
people of 70's and 80's grew up with the rapid economic development and
capitalistic market reforms. Also they were the generations that went back to
school taking education seriously after the previous generations wasted their
time in countless strife, like the Culture Revolution.

Alibaba probably couldn't find sufficient talents in the pre-70's generations.

~~~
SCAQTony
I think you nailed it. When I read the article I was thinking about names like
Buffet, Jobs, Murdock, who certainly added more equity to their companies
especially after they turned 30. Instead of saying post 70's it seems more
accurate that it's "Post Nixon."

------
xngzng
In China it is pretty standard to use 70后(后=after), 80后 (born 1980-1989), 90后
(born 1990-1999) etc to describe the age of a person. Instead of "he is forty-
something", you say "he is 70后". "Born in the 70s" might be a little lost in
translation.

~~~
puppetmaster3
Same in former Yugoslavia. I am 70's generation - as in born in 70's.

------
iliketosleep
isn't there an elephant in the room here? specifically, ageism. whilst it's
fantastic to give opportunities to the youth, promoting people on the basis of
youth whilst "resuffling" other employees just because they were born before
the 70's doesn't seem like wise corporate policy. if a guy who is born in the
50's is still a fresh thinker and performs well, why hold his age against him?
china has an ageing population and with corporate policies/attitude like this,
things will take a turn for the worse. i'm shock that so many people applaud
jack ma for his blatant ageism

~~~
whybroke
And more broadly than just Alibaba or China, 14 of the 15 posts to this thread
so far say the policy is wonderful. Indeed, there is praise that the company
is massively invested in talent development. But not apparently enough to
bring the guy born in 1969 who's skill apparently evaporated, up to the skill
level of someone born in 1971 who is still apparently a maestro (for one more
birthday anyway)

------
riffraff
These reminds me a lot of "Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visoionary
Copmpanies"[0], where the authors of the book spend a lot of time pointing out
how the companies they consider "better" (better performing in the long run,
most likely to not fail, widely considered leaders of their field etc) have a
few shared features such as a widespread shared culture, homegrown management,
focus on building a lasting company rather than immediate benefits etc.

The book is very interesting, but I believe the conclusion are quite arguable
and 25 years later many of those companies might not be looked with the same
glaring eyes (i.e. HP, motorola).

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Built_to_Last:_Successful_Habit...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Built_to_Last:_Successful_Habits_of_Visionary_Companies)

~~~
drone
Interestingly, a newer book with a different focus, Boards that Lead [0], lays
the blame on the ultimate demise/downfall of those two companies on the boards
as instructive of things not to do. Both books are quite good, and worth
reading -- even if it is better not to treat them like roadmaps =)

[0] [http://www.amazon.com/Boards-That-Lead-Charge-
Partner/dp/142...](http://www.amazon.com/Boards-That-Lead-Charge-
Partner/dp/1422144054)

~~~
riffraff
our own (HN's) davidw coined Welton's law about this[0] some years back: "For
each bit business advice, there is an equal and opposite bit of business
advice” :)

[0] [http://journal.dedasys.com/2011/05/10/weltons-law-of-
trite-b...](http://journal.dedasys.com/2011/05/10/weltons-law-of-trite-
business-advice/)

------
ChuckMcM
Fascinating letter. In my mind this is the difference between building an
institution and building a company. Building the company to have processes in
place to keep the management and strategy evolving, rather than hoping that
people will do that on their own, is pretty forward thinking.

------
plinkplonk
Interesting. This is essentially institutionalizing ageism.

------
brentis
Reminds me of Logan's Run....

