Many companies aren’t prepared to replace underperforming CEOs

Post by alexeldeib » Fri, Nov 04, 2022, 7:35 PM UTC

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...

Post by BlargMcLarg » Fri, Nov 04, 2022, 7:39 PM UTC

whyenot wrote: post #70

candiddevmike wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Post by danaris » Fri, Nov 04, 2022, 7:39 PM UTC

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.

Post by NovemberWhiskey » Fri, Nov 04, 2022, 7:40 PM UTC

goopthink wrote: post #61

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 se…

Post by whatshisface » Fri, Nov 04, 2022, 7:42 PM UTC

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #78

goopthink wrote: post #61

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 se…

I've been in preparation of board materials for Fortune 100 companies (primarily for the audit committee) and honestly that is not my experience.