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

91–100 of 252 posts

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

#91

Post by kennend3 »

sli wrote: post #75
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…

> Is there anything non C-levels can do about it? Labor unions and strikes.

Can you provide some examples of where a labour union has went on strike to remove a C-Level person?

I eagerly await your examples.

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

#92

Post by marcosdumay »

thesuitonym wrote: post #30
andirk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> the 1%

How many are they again?

I doubt there are millions of them on the US.

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

#93

Post by rajeshp1986 »

bombcar wrote: 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.

The biggest issue the board seats have become status ornaments. People grab these board seats and most of them don't understand the company or product are shy of taking responsibilities. You would see two kinds of people who are on the board - first they are in some executive positions in other organization and are already very busy and the second category of people who grab these board positions for fame but don't want anything to do with it.

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

#94

Post by hypersoar »

I'm thinking of a Jadzia Dax in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Jadzia is among the lucky few among her race, the Trill, implanted with a "symbiote" carrying the memories of all of its previous hosts. Carrying a symbiote is an unrealized dream for many Trill who wash out of the rigorous application and training process and are told they're incompatible. In one episode, one such disgruntled fellow tries to steal Jadzia's. In another, we learn a twist: compatibility is actually very common. There just aren't enough symbiotes to go around, so they lie about it.

My pet theory is that grossly-paid C-suite executive jobs are like this. Plenty of middle-managers could do as well as the average CEO. But there's only so much room at the top of the hierarchy, and we need to pay them hundreds of millions of dollars.

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

#95

Post by MichaelZuo »

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…

This is usually resolved by requiring a minimum ownership stake for each prospective board member, and to make sure it represents a significant fraction of their total net worth.

To guarantee that the board would lose their shirts if they make decisions completely opposite to reality, thus motivating a more thorough investigation of what they see and hear.

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

#96

Post by kennend3 »

kranke155 wrote: post #19
quadcore wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like to believe Apple under Jobs was different.

It clearly was. It was a high performing organisation with few peers in corporate history. Apple under Jobs was perhaps one of the biggest value creating organisations in our recent memory, if not the most value creating organisation in the last 20/30 years. So whatever he did, it worked brilliantly. The only analogue we have now is SpaceX imo. Tesla, if they crack self driving, maybe.

You have conveniently forgotten a serious part of apple's history so let me remind you.

" Steve Jobs and Bill Gates’ rivalrous friendship is the stuff of tech lore. The most poignant moment of that fraught relationship happened 20 years ago. In August of 1997, Gates stepped in and saved Apple, which, at the time, was on the brink of bankruptcy.

“Bill, thank you. The world’s a better place,” Jobs told Gates after the Microsoft exec agreed to make a $150 million investment in Apple. "

So was it working brilliantly when it was 90 days from bankruptcy and was thrown a lifeline by Gates?

Jobs was lucky with the iPhone...

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

#97

Post by seppel »

siva7 wrote: post #44
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.

corporations are not democratic institutions

Well, they are to quite some extend. But on the level of the owners / shareholders.

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

#98

Post by FredPret »

fdgsdfogijq wrote: post #3

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…

I’d say this is false. Accountability becomes easier as you go up.

For then owner, everything is on them. They’re the owner. They pick the CEO. They can lose their money.

For the CEO, everything is on them as well, but the worst that can happen is they get sued or fired. They pick the people who are responsible for sales, costs, etc.

Any failure in these areas is very simple to attribute to the executive in question because it all flows into their area of responsibility.

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

#99

Post by [deleted] »

whatshisface wrote: post #80
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The audit committee would be the one place you'd expect that not to happen.

[deleted]

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

#100

Post by atq2119 »

thesuitonym wrote: post #30
andirk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

More like 0.1% or less.
Post reply on HN