Live data from Hacker News

Many companies aren’t prepared to replace underperforming CEOs

gsb.stanford.edu

21–30 of 252 posts

Re: Many companies aren’t prepared to replace underperforming CEOs

#21
I've only seen a CEO let go once in my career. And it wasn't due to performance, it was due to an alleged sexual assault which quietly and quickly disappeared.

I imagine with the various golden parachute clauses and valuable social connections with other companies (I'd wager there's some skeletons in closets being held hostage too), it's too damned expensive to let a CEO go for anything less than a scandal.

Re: Many companies aren’t prepared to replace underperforming CEOs

#22
post #2

In 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.

Discontinued website theyrule.net had a really cool visual web of board members of high profile companies [0]. Amazing how many board members of one company are board members of a handful of others. It's like there's a breed of person who is just "board member".

[0] https://theyrule.net/

Re: Many companies aren’t prepared to replace underperforming CEOs

#23

Theres 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.

CEOs need to be lookout ten years out. They have little control over this quarters numbers, or even this years. All they can do is changes that won't affect the bottom line for a while.

Re: Many companies aren’t prepared to replace underperforming CEOs

#24
post #18

One of the C-level guys at my current company should have been replaced a while ago. He ruins everything he touches but he's also one of the founders. There are virtually no processes for anything which makes him untouchable. Whenever he fucks up, some PM or low level manager is fired due to their "low performance". Is there anything non C-levels can do about it? Honestly I don't think so, all you can do is avoid the…

Yeah, jump ship to a more competently-ran company.

Re: Many companies aren’t prepared to replace underperforming CEOs

#25

Random 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.

Super interesting. Def think there’s lots of room for experimentation in corporate governance and corporation structure

Re: Many companies aren’t prepared to replace underperforming CEOs

#26
post #18

One of the C-level guys at my current company should have been replaced a while ago. He ruins everything he touches but he's also one of the founders. There are virtually no processes for anything which makes him untouchable. Whenever he fucks up, some PM or low level manager is fired due to their "low performance". Is there anything non C-levels can do about it? Honestly I don't think so, all you can do is avoid the…

This is why free software is a grift when the real problem is we are slaves to an ownership class and all the control of software can’t save us from their ability to infect companies, markets, governments, cultures and fuck them up. Democracy in all of these structures gives us the same benefits of FOSS with many more added freedoms and a handful new responsibilities.

Re: Many companies aren’t prepared to replace underperforming CEOs

#27

Theres 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 hav…

I was part of a layoff affecting 100s of employees because of a boneheaded decision, corrupt project manager, etc. There was nothing at all I could do about it.

Re: Many companies aren’t prepared to replace underperforming CEOs

#28

Theres 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 hav…

In theory, I agree with you. In practice, it is mind-bogglingly rare how often high-level executives are fired for any reason, whether their fault or not.

Re: Many companies aren’t prepared to replace underperforming CEOs

#29

Random idea- has any corporation operated with something akin to term limits?

Seems like it would be a terrible idea. CEOs are already incredibly short sighted, neglecting long-term disasters for short-term gains. Sometimes it seems as though CEOs aren't able to see beyond the next quarterly earnings report. Having a limit would incentivize running the company into the ground to get the highest quarterly profit possible. What do they care? Someone else will be CEO next year.

Re: Many companies aren’t prepared to replace underperforming CEOs

#30
post #22
post #2

In 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.

Discontinued website theyrule.net had a really cool visual web of board members of high profile companies [0]. Amazing how many board members of one company are board members of a handful of others. It's like there's a breed of person who is just "board member". [0] https://theyrule.net/

> It's like there's a breed of person who is just "board member".

Typically known as "capitalists", the bourgeoisie, the 1%, etc.

Post reply on HN