41–50 of 363 posts
Why is paying them less not seen as an option? I've seen multiple startups struggle because their CEO makes more than 10 qualified technical staff, where the employees burn out because there's no budget to hire the technical staff the company needs.
So it seems that the idea that a CEO could be automated misses the point of what CEOs do and how they get hired.
The reason we don't automate CEOs is liability: the board of directors/shareholders want someone to hold accountable when bad decisions start getting made. If you pay $4000 for a brand new iCEO that lays off your entire staff, you can really only scream at whoever minted the software making that decision, which often comes with limited liability licenses. Remember, corporate structure is about minimizing your own wor…
My new SAAS startup idea; scapegoat as a service. For a few million dollars you can hire me, put all the blame on me, I say "I take full responsibility" and resign my position.
Why is paying them less not seen as an option? I've seen multiple startups struggle because their CEO makes more than 10 qualified technical staff, where the employees burn out because there's no budget to hire the technical staff the company needs.
I don't understand - do you think companies are voluntarily paying them money that they don't have to?
If you won't pay them what they want they'll go elsewhere to someone that will.
Just like you would, I presume.
Why is paying them less not seen as an option? I've seen multiple startups struggle because their CEO makes more than 10 qualified technical staff, where the employees burn out because there's no budget to hire the technical staff the company needs.
Presumably because the market dictates their salary, not a vague notion of what they should be paid. Or, to reframe the question: why don't people hire cheaper CEOs?
Ahh yes, when the "market" is primarily made up of other CEOs (i.e. who sit on corporate boards), whose primary vested interested is to ensure CEO salaries stay astronomically high.
Why is paying them less not seen as an option? I've seen multiple startups struggle because their CEO makes more than 10 qualified technical staff, where the employees burn out because there's no budget to hire the technical staff the company needs.
The fully loaded cost of a qualified developer begins in the six figures. A CEO earning 10x that would be earning 7 figures.
I've never seen an actual startup with a CEO earning 7 figure cash compensation. I don't think any reasonable investors or even board members would allow that.
Startup CEOs are largely compensated in equity, with their cash compensation being significant ($100-200K if company has revenue) but not overwhelming. They're often not the highest paid person in the company in terms of cash + bonus.
Why is paying them less not seen as an option? I've seen multiple startups struggle because their CEO makes more than 10 qualified technical staff, where the employees burn out because there's no budget to hire the technical staff the company needs.
Presumably because the market dictates their salary, not a vague notion of what they should be paid. Or, to reframe the question: why don't people hire cheaper CEOs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As if no one has ever figured out how to exploit the CEO...
Ha!! My miniskirt says true ;)
If anyone is exploiting CEOs for personal benefit, miniskirts are not that.
As a counterpoint to whether the CEO role can be outsourced or automated (posted by the former CEO of reddit): https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/210to8/e...
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/210to8/e...