Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Many companies aren’t prepared to replace underperforming CEOs

gsb.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 252 posts

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

#61

Post by goopthink »

The company board’s sole job is to hire and fire the CEO when appropriate: https://reactionwheel.net/2021/11/your-boards-of-directors-i...

However, having been on a team that prepares board materials and also having presented to a company board, I can tell you that the information they receive is extremely carefully managed in a way that allows responsibility to seem to flow downwards rather than upwards. What you see as an IC or as a manager or ever director is extremely different from the cause and effects a board sees in a monthly or quarterly update. Hence they often come to different conclusions than the people in the trenches would. That said, I’m sure this is true for any large organizational unit (government, military, corporations, nonprofits, etc).

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

#62

Post by noasaservice »

candiddevmike wrote: post #55
noasaservice wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good question: Why not? The USA "ideals" taught in school say that democracy and democratic republics are the best forms of government.... yet (almost) all our companies are autocratic dictatorships.

Because it's under the guise of meritocracy, where if you just work hard enough, say 60 hours a week, you too can become CEO someday.

"Meritocracy " isn't a thing, since the "merit deciders" (ala kingmakers) decide whatever they want. (Or the next question in that line: who decides what merit is and who has it?)

And, the gist also has very strong vibes of Ronald Wright's misattributed John Steinbeck's quote:

“John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/328134-john-steinbeck-once-...

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

#64

Post by MuffinFlavored »

mkl95 wrote: 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…

> He ruins everything he touches but he's also one of the founders.

Statements like this are always so interesting to me online from the "there's two sides to every story" perspective.

Why not devil's advocate it and try to walk through life maybe not thinking in blanket statements? How can somebody who ruins everything be successful at all in life?

Maybe I just have more to learn...

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

#65

Post by AnimalMuppet »

mkl95 wrote: 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…

I think the only thing a non-C-level can do is get another C-level person to take action. Present a well-thought-out and well-documented case, and see if they will take action.

This may sound risky. But:

1. If you succeed, you may dramatically improve your working environment.

2. If you fail in a way that damages your job, you probably should have been looking for a way out of there anyway, because he's going to continue to make that a crummy place to work.

Note well: You probably shouldn't try this until you're ready to leave, both emotionally and financially, because you may get fired on the spot.

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

#67

Post by afarrell »

3a2d29 wrote: post #33
thesuitonym wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But surely if CEOs had term limits then the good ones would be jumping from one company to another, so if they think too short term then no board would hire them. Boards would hire the CEOs that set the next one up for success. Kinda like how term limits for the us president doesn’t usually result in that type of behavior since it would screw over their party.

That only works if you assume high-quality objectively-understandable information.

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

#68

Post by xboxnolifes »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #64
mkl95 wrote: 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…

> He ruins everything he touches but he's also one of the founders. Statements like this are always so interesting to me online from the "there's two sides to every story" perspective. Why not devil's advocate it and try to walk through life maybe not thinking in blanket statements? How can somebody who ruins everything be successful at all in life? Maybe I just have more to learn...

He's successful because he's part of a successful team.

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

#69

Post by [deleted] »

mkl95 wrote: 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…

[deleted]

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

#70

Post by whyenot »

candiddevmike wrote: post #39
mkl95 wrote: 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…

I really think everyone under any manager/director/VP (directly or indirectly via skip levels) should be able to call a "vote of no confidence" and get them replaced with a majority vote. It's the only way to combat clueless leaders and raise issues like this.

Managing other people can be difficult, especially when you need to make decisions that are in the best interest of the organization (and its owners), but what may not necessarily be a popular choice among the employees you are responsible for. Often times "clueless leaders" actually do have a clue, it's just that their decisions have to consider other factors, not just what is best for you. It can really suck to be the person in that position.
Post reply on HN