Many companies aren’t prepared to replace underperforming CEOs
gsb.stanford.edu
Many companies aren’t prepared to replace underperforming CEOs
1–10 of 252 posts
Re: Many companies aren’t prepared to replace underperforming CEOs
#2In theory the Board's only job is to fire the CEO (and hire the next one) but if you've ever been to a board meeting they hardly are like that at all. They mainly are to align the company's "journey" with the "journey" of all the other companies the board members are involved with.
Re: Many companies aren’t prepared to replace underperforming CEOs
#3Theres no accountability above a certain level. In a stable business (am excluding new innovations), proving or disproving the performance of an entire org, let alone company, is extremely difficult. Individual contributors are much easier to judge, and thus live lives of sub-ordinance. Their inputs and outputs can be easily mapped. The trick of working, and thus living a nice life, is to rise to a level of plausible deniability, which begins ~3/4 levels of management up.
In Big Tech, most high level management was just there first. They started when that business unit started, and have been there for 20 years. An old stable business unit promoting a low level go getter way up the chain is basically unheard of
Re: Many companies aren’t prepared to replace underperforming CEOs
#4Random idea- has any corporation operated with something akin to term limits?
Re: Many companies aren’t prepared to replace underperforming CEOs
#5Theres no accountability above a certain level. In a stable business (am excluding new innovations), proving or disproving the performance of an entire org, let alone company, is extremely difficult. Individual contributors are much easier to judge, and thus live lives of sub-ordinance. Their inputs and outputs can be easily mapped. The trick of working, and thus living a nice life, is to rise to a level of plausible…
CEO is the easiest to measure, because you just pass through how the company as a whole is performing against it's goals.
Re: Many companies aren’t prepared to replace underperforming CEOs
#6Theres no accountability above a certain level. In a stable business (am excluding new innovations), proving or disproving the performance of an entire org, let alone company, is extremely difficult. Individual contributors are much easier to judge, and thus live lives of sub-ordinance. Their inputs and outputs can be easily mapped. The trick of working, and thus living a nice life, is to rise to a level of plausible…
And as you rise, your pay increases along with other benefits (time off, "business lunches"/conferences/golfing with vendors, etc). The furthest you are from doing actual "grunt work", the better off you are it seems.
Re: Many companies aren’t prepared to replace underperforming CEOs
#7Random idea- has any corporation operated with something akin to term limits?
Huawei does this, I think every 18 months they change CEO among the leadership team.
Re: Many companies aren’t prepared to replace underperforming CEOs
#8In theory the Board's only job is to fire the CEO (and hire the next one) but if you've ever been to a board meeting they hardly are like that at all. They mainly are to align the company's "journey" with the "journey" of all the other companies the board members are involved with.
Minor correction, the board's only job is to hire/fire the CEO, and decide whether the company can be sold to a prospective buyer
Re: Many companies aren’t prepared to replace underperforming CEOs
#9Theres no accountability above a certain level. In a stable business (am excluding new innovations), proving or disproving the performance of an entire org, let alone company, is extremely difficult. Individual contributors are much easier to judge, and thus live lives of sub-ordinance. Their inputs and outputs can be easily mapped. The trick of working, and thus living a nice life, is to rise to a level of plausible…
CEO is the easiest to measure, because you just pass through how the company as a whole is performing against it's goals.
I'm not even sure it should be "against [its] goals", because the goals are chosen by the CEO. (Choose bad goals and accomplish them, and you're still a bad CEO.)
It's just company performance, IMO.
Re: Many companies aren’t prepared to replace underperforming CEOs
#10Theres no accountability above a certain level. In a stable business (am excluding new innovations), proving or disproving the performance of an entire org, let alone company, is extremely difficult. Individual contributors are much easier to judge, and thus live lives of sub-ordinance. Their inputs and outputs can be easily mapped. The trick of working, and thus living a nice life, is to rise to a level of plausible…
Wut? At higher level in an organization, there is a much greater chance that you will be fired for things that you really have little control over. Now, at the highest levels, the compensation usually matches this level of uncertainty, sometimes with golden parachutes as well, so if you are fired you're still sitting pretty.
But, for me, I wouldn't define "a nice life" with having to deal with that much stress as having so many things outside of my control.