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

201–210 of 252 posts

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

#201

Post by taneq »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #175
DebtDeflation wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many corporate boards have an "executive chairman" which means the CEO is also the Chairman of the Board. Perhaps even more importantly a substantial number of board members are executives from other companies, meaning CEOs sit on each others boards and wash each others' backs.

I have to wonder if it should be considered a legal conflict of interest for a CEO to sit on the board at all, forget being chairman. The powerful really love rigging stuff in their favor huh

> The powerful really love rigging stuff in their favor huh

You say that like there's anybody that doesn't. The powerful just have more scope to actually do so.

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

#204

Post by staticautomatic »

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…

Technically, the board’s job is to represent the interests of common stock holders.

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

#205

Post by preommr »

hinata08 wrote: post #197

CEOs can't underperform, wage earners aren't working hard enough and are just there for money I'm a bit surprised this article only mentions replacing the CEO. It takes for granted that companies are top-down organisations Some companies perform well without even a CEO, as featured in _Capitalism: A Love Story_ from Michael Moore, and several press cases, like a national teabag brand close to my place. Also, in every…

> CEOs can't underperform, wage earners aren't working hard enough and are just there for money

For such a markup, it would make more sense to have some kind of delimiter to more easily match tags e.g. ... , where the second term is a reserved keyword that defines the scope.

That said, I think that where the tags are matching would make more sense since they would probably be more compatible with existing markup languages.

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

#206

Post by [deleted] »

ipaddr wrote: post #196
bluefirebrand wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to wonder if it should be considered a legal conflict of interest for a CEO to sit on the board at all, forget being chairman. The powerful really love rigging stuff in their favor huh

You shouldn't be allowed to sit on multiple boards or as a CEO/VP in any company

[deleted]

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

#207

Post by missedthecue »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #200
missedthecue wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In essence, they are. Shareholders elect board members who hire for important roles. This is similar to democratic governments. In no democracy will voters elect the Minister of Energy or Transport or Defense or Labor or the foreign secretary. This is chosen by the elected officials.

> In essence, they are. Shareholders elect board members who hire for important roles. shareholders don't have all equal vote. Employees have no vote. Its closer to aristocracy if anything

Employers deserve to get vote as much as parts suppliers should. The company is a customer of employees, buying their labor.

Do you think US Steel should get to vote on what Ford Motor Company does? That just seems totally backwards.

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

#208

Post by xwolfi »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #175
DebtDeflation wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many corporate boards have an "executive chairman" which means the CEO is also the Chairman of the Board. Perhaps even more importantly a substantial number of board members are executives from other companies, meaning CEOs sit on each others boards and wash each others' backs.

I have to wonder if it should be considered a legal conflict of interest for a CEO to sit on the board at all, forget being chairman. The powerful really love rigging stuff in their favor huh

It is know since companies have existed that this is indeed bad corporate governance. The CEO should be firable at the leisure of the board, and the board at the leisure of the shareholders.

What seems to happen often is blurried lines: the ceo founder is majority shareholder, the board is his family, friends and paid lawyers, the shareholders are asleep at the wheel as long as some profits rain in, the regulator finds no law broken.

Tesla is a model of bad governance, to the point the harshest sanction a regulator could levy against their chairman/ceo for manipulating the stock price, a capital sin, is to make him only CEO, while not removing his family members from the board... a systemic european bank is the model of good governance: you can see epic ceo vs board fights, shareholder revolutions etc etc.

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

#209

Post by underwater »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #65
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 cont…

I've had a few "well documented cases" shared with me in my time. Generally they are lengthy rants that make it clear that the author doesn't understand the constraints or goals of the business.

Occasionally, there will be some useful insights mixed in, but that is rare. I'd suggest rather than trying to make the case independently, find a trusted party, tell them that you have concerns about X, and let them drive the conversation. You may pique their interest, or give them a chance to validate concerns they already have.

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

#210

Post by osigurdson »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #175
DebtDeflation wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many corporate boards have an "executive chairman" which means the CEO is also the Chairman of the Board. Perhaps even more importantly a substantial number of board members are executives from other companies, meaning CEOs sit on each others boards and wash each others' backs.

I have to wonder if it should be considered a legal conflict of interest for a CEO to sit on the board at all, forget being chairman. The powerful really love rigging stuff in their favor huh

Unfortunately, no organizational structure exists which guarantees optimal outcomes. Everything depends on the actual individuals who occupy the roles.

Such structures should ultimately be up to the shareholders.

Post reply on HN