This CEO went from folding clothes at Nordstrom to being Jeff Bezos' right hand man—the billionaire told him to delegate to his employees more
During Greg Hart's monotonous college job of folding t-shirts and jeans at Nordstrom, he never imagined that one day he'd be right-hand man to one of the most notable CEOs in the world—or even be an executive himself.
But after landing a job at Amazon in the late 1990s—when it was a bookstore-focused startup—Hart started his steep climb up the corporate ladder. In 2009, he had worked his way up to Jeff Bezos' technical advisor, a chief-of-staff-equivalent role internally known as 'the shadow.'
Now, as a new CEO of Coursera, Hart is taking the lessons he learned sitting next to the now third-richest man in the world (with a net worth of $241 billion) to transform the world of educational technology. That includes, he says, being someone who is always willing to be curious and to listen to your gut—even if the data might not back you up.
'One of the things that Jeff would regularly say is when the data and the anecdotes don't align, trust the anecdotes,' Hart tells Fortune. 'Because it probably means that you're either measuring the wrong thing in the data, or that the data is telling you something that you're just not seeing yet.'
This mantra would prove especially relevant in Hart's life after he was tapped to lead Amazon's creation of Alexa—a level of success he hopes to emulate at Coursera.
'(Coursera) is one of the leaders in the edtech space, certainly,' Hart says. 'But hasn't yet achieved what I would call the true breakout success that I was fortunate to have seen when I was at Amazon.'
While serving as technical advisor, Hart was asked to turn Bezos' two-sentence idea for the implementation of virtual assistant technology into a product found in consumers' homes, later known as Alexa.
With little background in hardware or software, Hart recalls being hesitant: 'Why am I the right person to tackle this challenge?'
'He (Bezos) was unbelievably gracious. He said, 'you'll do fine, you'll figure it out,'' Hart says.
Now with more than 600 million Alexa devices sold, it's clear Hart did figure it out—in part thanks to the belief Bezos instilled in his subordinates. That lesson is one Hart says was critical in making Amazon grow from a bookstore to an e-commerce conglomerate.
'Pushing decisions down as close to the customer as possible was certainly something that I learned from Jeff,' he says. 'The fewer decisions that have to go to the CEO, the faster the organization will move.'
Moving quickly will likely play in Coursera's favor considering the rapidly changing world of education, including AI's intersection with skill development.
One of Coursera's biggest competitors, 2U (which also owns edX), filed for bankruptcy last year and became a private company. Coursera's public performance hasn't been spectacular, either. Its share price currently sits at about $8.50, a far cry from its 2022 IPO at about $45.
But in the next five years, a predicted 1 billion people will gain internet access, according to Bloomberg, and thus would have access to Coursera's thousands of online learning opportunities, that include partnerships with both industry and universities including Google, Microsoft, and IBM as well as Stanford University, University of Michigan, and University of Pennsylvania.
'There is a huge opportunity for Coursera, not just to serve all the people who are online today and give them access to world class education so they can transform their lives, but also to do that for the population that will come online,' Hart says.
For young people looking to push their careers up the corporate ladder and emulate a jump from Nordstrom to Amazon,Hart's advice is simple: Focus on learning—not on a flashy job title or cushy salary.
'Don't optimize for titles, don't optimize for salary, optimize for learning. And if you do that in the long run, it will benefit you,' he tells Fortune.
And while that advice may sound on-brand coming from the CEO of an education company, treating your career like a marathon, not a sprint, and spending time discovering your broader interests is a mantra echoed by other business leaders, including Hart's former coworker, Andy Jassy.
'I have a 21-year-old son and a 24-year-old daughter, and one of the things I see with them and their peers is they all feel like they have to know what they want to do for their life at that age,' Jassy, the current Amazon CEO, said on the podcast, How Leaders Lead with David Novak. 'And I really don't believe that's true.'
'I tried a lot of things, and I think that early on it's just as important to learn what you don't want to do as what you want to do, because it actually helps you figure out what you want to do,' Jassy added.
And while Jassy admits career success involves an element of luck and may include multiple setbacks, remaining persistent is what ultimately might land you a shot at the corner office.
'I feel like my journey or adventure was a lot of luck, and I think maybe one of the things I did best was not overthink it,' Jassy added to Novak.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Error al recuperar los datos
Inicia sesión para acceder a tu cartera de valores
Error al recuperar los datos
Error al recuperar los datos
Error al recuperar los datos
Error al recuperar los datos
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tiger Woods News Emerges Before US Open
Tiger Woods News Emerges Before US Open originally appeared on Athlon Sports. The golf world is focused on Oakmont Country Club in Pennsylvania this week as the third major championship of the 2025 season gets underway Thursday. The U.S. Open has arrived, and some of the sport's biggest names are preparing to tackle the daunting challenge of the historic golf course. Advertisement One name not in the field but still making headlines is Tiger Woods. The 49-year-old legend, a three-time U.S. Open champion, continues to battle injuries. Though he hasn't teed it up in an official event on Tour since The Open Championship last July, Woods remains a towering figure in golf. That was made even more evident this week. Just one day before the U.S. Open begins, Forbes shared its list of the highest-paid golfers of 2025, and Woods ranked fourth, despite his only competition being two events in the TMRW Golf League (TGL) that he formed with fellow golfer Rory McIlroy. According to Forbes, despite parting ways with Nike after 27 years in 2024, Woods has still earned $55 million, with $10 million on the course and $45 million in revenue off the course. Advertisement Even without frequent appearances on the course, Tiger's impact on the sport remains undeniable. Tiger Woods is fourth on the 2025 Forbes list of highest-earning golfers with $55 Gruber / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images Along with Tiger, several other stars also made the list: Jon Rahm ranks No. 1 on the list. The 30-year-old Spaniard earned $92 million on the course and $10 million off it. He's been a force in LIV Golf, currently sitting third in the individual standings with three top-five finishes in eight starts. Scottie Scheffler, the second highest-paid golfer, brought in $97 million total, $67 million on the course (including a $25 million FedEx Cup bonus) and $30 million off it. Despite those massive earnings, Scheffler still trails Rahm. McIlroy rounds out the top three. The 36-year-old finally captured his first green jacket at the Masters in April, completing the career grand slam. He made $84 million overall, evenly split between his on-course performance and endorsements. Collin Morikawa is fifth on the list at $50 million. The 28-year-old American, despite not winning on the PGA Tour since 2023, remains one of the sport's top draws. His best U.S. Open finish was fourth in 2021. As the 2025 U.S. Open begins, many eyes remain on the current stars battling at Oakmont. But the name Tiger Woods continues to carry serious weight in the world of golf. Related: Scottie Scheffler Reacts to Ryder Cup Announcement on Thursday Related: Phil Mickelson Addresses Incredible Birdie Shot at LIV Golf Virginia This story was originally reported by Athlon Sports on Jun 11, 2025, where it first appeared.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
While individual investors own 29% of Theon International Plc (AMS:THEON), private companies are its largest shareholders with 57% ownership
Theon International's significant private companies ownership suggests that the key decisions are influenced by shareholders from the larger public Venetus Limited owns 57% of the company Analyst forecasts along with ownership data serve to give a strong idea about prospects for a business We've found 21 US stocks that are forecast to pay a dividend yield of over 6% next year. See the full list for free. Every investor in Theon International Plc (AMS:THEON) should be aware of the most powerful shareholder groups. And the group that holds the biggest piece of the pie are private companies with 57% ownership. In other words, the group stands to gain the most (or lose the most) from their investment into the company. Meanwhile, individual investors make up 29% of the company's shareholders. Let's delve deeper into each type of owner of Theon International, beginning with the chart below. See our latest analysis for Theon International Institutions typically measure themselves against a benchmark when reporting to their own investors, so they often become more enthusiastic about a stock once it's included in a major index. We would expect most companies to have some institutions on the register, especially if they are growing. Less than 5% of Theon International is held by institutional investors. This suggests that some funds have the company in their sights, but many have not yet bought shares in it. If the business gets stronger from here, we could see a situation where more institutions are keen to buy. When multiple institutional investors want to buy shares, we often see a rising share price. The past revenue trajectory (shown below) can be an indication of future growth, but there are no guarantees. We note that hedge funds don't have a meaningful investment in Theon International. Venetus Limited is currently the largest shareholder, with 57% of shares outstanding. This implies that they have majority interest control of the future of the company. Meanwhile, the second and third largest shareholders, hold 9.5% and 1.5%, of the shares outstanding, respectively. Christianos Hadjiminas, who is the second-largest shareholder, also happens to hold the title of Chief Executive Officer. While it makes sense to study institutional ownership data for a company, it also makes sense to study analyst sentiments to know which way the wind is blowing. There are plenty of analysts covering the stock, so it might be worth seeing what they are forecasting, too. The definition of company insiders can be subjective and does vary between jurisdictions. Our data reflects individual insiders, capturing board members at the very least. The company management answer to the board and the latter should represent the interests of shareholders. Notably, sometimes top-level managers are on the board themselves. Most consider insider ownership a positive because it can indicate the board is well aligned with other shareholders. However, on some occasions too much power is concentrated within this group. We can report that insiders do own shares in Theon International Plc. It is a pretty big company, so it is generally a positive to see some potentially meaningful alignment. In this case, they own around €204m worth of shares (at current prices). Most would say this shows alignment of interests between shareholders and the board. Still, it might be worth checking if those insiders have been selling. The general public-- including retail investors -- own 29% stake in the company, and hence can't easily be ignored. While this size of ownership may not be enough to sway a policy decision in their favour, they can still make a collective impact on company policies. We can see that Private Companies own 57%, of the shares on issue. It might be worth looking deeper into this. If related parties, such as insiders, have an interest in one of these private companies, that should be disclosed in the annual report. Private companies may also have a strategic interest in the company. It's always worth thinking about the different groups who own shares in a company. But to understand Theon International better, we need to consider many other factors. Like risks, for instance. Every company has them, and we've spotted 2 warning signs for Theon International (of which 1 is potentially serious!) you should know about. Ultimately the future is most important. You can access this free report on analyst forecasts for the company. NB: Figures in this article are calculated using data from the last twelve months, which refer to the 12-month period ending on the last date of the month the financial statement is dated. This may not be consistent with full year annual report figures. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's trade brinkmanship imperils market stability
As the United States and China inch toward formalizing the outcomes of their recent economic talks in London, markets are sending a clear signal: they want stability, not another season of tariff theatrics. Yet the Trump administration's renewed protectionist tilt, including the looming July 9 deadline for punitive tariffs, risks derailing a fragile recovery and undermining American economic resilience. The London meetings followed a call between President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, culminating in a framework that would resume China's rare earth exports and ease U.S. trade restrictions. It's an imperfect deal, but it reflects an important truth: Economic coercion has failed to deliver strategic outcomes. Markets, manufacturers and consumers are all still paying the price of the last trade war. Rare earths remain a critical node in this standoff. China refines nearly 80 percent of the global supply — inputs essential to American electric vehicles, semiconductors and defense technologies. When Beijing halted export approvals earlier this year, U.S. manufacturers faced mounting delays and soaring input costs. The reversal eases a significant bottleneck and offers inflation relief. In exchange, China will regain access to U.S. manufacturing inputs and regulatory clarity — a win for both sides, but especially for U.S. firms squeezed by global supply chain frictions. Rare-earth dynamics further reinforce the stakes. China's June 26 pledge to resume rare-earth shipments to the U.S. triggered a sharp rally in domestic producers. Meanwhile, export volumes from China had fallen nearly 50 percent year-over-year in May, citing tightened controls. Those disruptions directly impacted U.S. electric makers and aerospace supply chains. In this context, the tentative deal on rare-earths licensing isn't a niche victory — it's a strategic pivot that underscores: markets reward policy clarity, even in geopolitically charged commodity markets. Yet the calm is temporary. Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariff framework proposes up to 50 percent duties on countries that fail to sign new bilateral deals by July 9. A 90-day grace period has been offered, but this is brinkmanship disguised as strategy. And if the deadline passes without a broader deal, the tariffs snap back — with potentially damaging ripple effects. The last trade escalation offers a cautionary tale. Tariffs on Chinese goods hit 145 percent; Beijing responded with levies up to 125 percent. American manufacturers endured record costs, while exporters in both countries lost access to reliable markets. The U.S. goods trade deficit with China didn't shrink — it widened to $396 billion in 2024. Meanwhile, American farmers faced oversupply, and consumers bore the burden through higher prices. U.S. equities have responded to this nascent trade detente with enthusiasm. The S&P 500 ETF recently hit $615, brushing off earlier tariff jitters. Meanwhile, traders have rotated into commodities, with copper futures climbing nearly 3 percent in late June, reflecting expectations of stronger industrial demand under clearer supply logistics. Even gold has softened from conflict-driven highs. Markets are signaling that certainty matters — not tariff theatrics. The contrast is clear: a modest trade framework sparks calm; tariff threats inject volatility. That is the heartbeat investors care about. The global spillover from trade tensions was immediate. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, World Bank and International Monetary Fund all downgraded growth forecasts, citing the uncertainty created by revived trade barriers. Investor sentiment plunged. Only now, as trade talks signal détente, has the S&P 500 rallied and oil futures stabilized. Markets know the difference between real strategy and performative populism. So do the businesses that depend on open trade. Trump's tariffs didn't reshore factories or rebalance the trade deficit. What they did do was erode U.S. credibility with allies, invite World Trade Organization scrutiny and distort global supply chains. If the objective was to discipline China's behavior, the evidence shows failure. What has worked — albeit modestly — is targeted cooperation, regulatory certainty and consistent enforcement of existing rules. The current agreement is a pragmatic step forward. It restores supply chain continuity for U.S. firms, removes ambiguity for global investors, and signals that economic diplomacy still matters. It also nudges U.S. trade policy back toward rational engagement after years of unilateral theatrics. Legal uncertainty still clouds the picture. A recent federal court ruling in V.O.S. Selections v. United States raises questions about whether the White House even has the authority to implement broad-based tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. If the decision is upheld, it will undercut the legal rationale for Trump's tariff agenda — and perhaps prompt overdue congressional clarity on trade powers. The broader lesson is clear: economic interdependence isn't weakness — it's leverage. The U.S. and China will remain strategic competitors, but durable competition requires rules, not impulsive penalty regimes that backfire on domestic producers. If this new framework holds, it won't mark the end of rivalry — but it could mark the beginning of a more coherent doctrine of economic statecraft. One that recognizes that markets punish uncertainty, and that protectionism is not a patriotic virtue but an economic deadweight. For now, Washington would do well to recognize what the S&P already has: stability is strength. And the best way to keep markets calm is not through tariffs — but through smart, disciplined diplomacy. Imran Khalid is a physician and has a master's degree in international relations. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Sign in to access your portfolio
