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

221–230 of 252 posts

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

#221

Post by kbenson »

jollofricepeas wrote: post #220
lostlogin wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no organizational structure exists which guarantees optimal outcomes I like the structure of bee colonies. The queen controls the temperament, the workers control the queen and adjust the rate of growth or contraction. Periodically workers replace her with one her of daughters (via regicide). I'm not sure what the takeaway here is though, as I don't like the idea of a monarchy or of communism.

Hmm, how insightful. Let’s dig into this. - Queen stops producing workers and is replaced by workers (regicide) or replaced by beekeepers (ie. shareholders) - Bees due to disease or other calamity don’t provide enough honey for their shareholders and they lose their hive and possibly life more than likely I’d prefer not to lose my life if I don’t produce at work if workers or shareholders aren’t happy

Kinda strange which parts you decided to view as metaphorical and transplant, such as shareholders, and which you decided we're integral to the idea and needed to stay, such as the death of hive members.

I think there might actually be some interesting things to consider if a hive-like approach was used for a business, but I'm not sure your assessment really gets to the heart of it.

In some ways, it's kind of like a co-op.

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

#222

Post by osigurdson »

lostlogin wrote: post #212
osigurdson wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> no organizational structure exists which guarantees optimal outcomes I like the structure of bee colonies. The queen controls the temperament, the workers control the queen and adjust the rate of growth or contraction. Periodically workers replace her with one her of daughters (via regicide). I'm not sure what the takeaway here is though, as I don't like the idea of a monarchy or of communism.

I meant a human organizational structure.

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

#223

Post by vba616 »

jyu wrote: post #89

Being CEO is good work if you can get it. Run a company to the ground and receive your golden parachute package for all that hard work.

Suppose you wanted to hire a driver for an armored truck that contains a billion dollars on an average day.

What kind of person would you look for and what would you pay them?

Would you try to find the most intelligent person, with the best driving skills, who is willing to work for the least pay?

Suppose you were interviewing that person, and s/he told you that you were an idiot for hiring the previous driver, who, despite impeccable references, disappeared with a truckload of cash after a week.

Are you convinced that you should hire the low bidder with the best skills?

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

#224

Post by headsoup »

kbenson wrote: post #221
jollofricepeas wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, how insightful. Let’s dig into this. - Queen stops producing workers and is replaced by workers (regicide) or replaced by beekeepers (ie. shareholders) - Bees due to disease or other calamity don’t provide enough honey for their shareholders and they lose their hive and possibly life more than likely I’d prefer not to lose my life if I don’t produce at work if workers or shareholders aren’t happy

Kinda strange which parts you decided to view as metaphorical and transplant, such as shareholders, and which you decided we're integral to the idea and needed to stay, such as the death of hive members. I think there might actually be some interesting things to consider if a hive-like approach was used for a business, but I'm not sure your assessment really gets to the heart of it. In some ways, it's kind of like a…

The really interesting part would be when winter hits and the Queen stops producing workers to downscale the hive (i.e. mass layoffs), then the insane period in spring where mass hiring starts...

Certainly a fun idea to play with

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

#225

Post by jollofricepeas »

kbenson wrote: post #221
jollofricepeas wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, how insightful. Let’s dig into this. - Queen stops producing workers and is replaced by workers (regicide) or replaced by beekeepers (ie. shareholders) - Bees due to disease or other calamity don’t provide enough honey for their shareholders and they lose their hive and possibly life more than likely I’d prefer not to lose my life if I don’t produce at work if workers or shareholders aren’t happy

Kinda strange which parts you decided to view as metaphorical and transplant, such as shareholders, and which you decided we're integral to the idea and needed to stay, such as the death of hive members. I think there might actually be some interesting things to consider if a hive-like approach was used for a business, but I'm not sure your assessment really gets to the heart of it. In some ways, it's kind of like a…

Well…

First, its not like bees get to negotiate their salaries and seek employment elsewhere.

Secondly, at scale you have to consider large beekeeping operations or even small ones which all have…shareholders.

So either the co-op needs to take into consideration societal and personal needs (ie. crime, health, housing) or your comparison needs to be rooted in basic economics (ie. supply, demand, labor markets).

Which is what the OP meant by “monarchy or communism” because fundamentally bee societies are more akin to government than business.

BUT, lets ask the bees what they think. I’m sure they’d prefer modern Westernized human employment over a labor camp like existence ;)

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

#226

Post by nitwit005 »

There's a big ego issue. Admitting the CEO failed requires admitting they failed.

The board picked out the CEO in the first place. They decided it was worth spending millions on them. And they likely approved of the CEO's plans whe it was discussed.

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

#227

Post by Supermancho »

jollofricepeas wrote: post #220
lostlogin wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no organizational structure exists which guarantees optimal outcomes I like the structure of bee colonies. The queen controls the temperament, the workers control the queen and adjust the rate of growth or contraction. Periodically workers replace her with one her of daughters (via regicide). I'm not sure what the takeaway here is though, as I don't like the idea of a monarchy or of communism.

Hmm, how insightful. Let’s dig into this. - Queen stops producing workers and is replaced by workers (regicide) or replaced by beekeepers (ie. shareholders) - Bees due to disease or other calamity don’t provide enough honey for their shareholders and they lose their hive and possibly life more than likely I’d prefer not to lose my life if I don’t produce at work if workers or shareholders aren’t happy

> I’d prefer not to lose my life

I'm not sure why you jump to this extreme. Being removed from your job sounds about right.

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

#228

Post by wenus »

DebtDeflation wrote: post #157
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…

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.

Wash?

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

#229

Post by neilv »

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…

> sometimes the co-founders really want to be the CEO for career or ego reasons (even though the investors usually don’t keep these promises: after taking out the CEO, the co-founders are usually next, partly because nobody can ever trust someone who stabbed a friend in the back, even the person who asked them to)

Everything I Need to Know in Life, I Learned from Mobster Movies

Post reply on HN