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

241–250 of 252 posts

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

#241

Post by refurb »

indymike wrote: post #239
refurb wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that, but changing CEO's has PR risk. Fire a CEO? Suddenly everyone is going to assume something is really wrong with the company.

> Suddenly everyone is going to assume something is really wrong with the company. This can work both ways. New management can be a really big boost.

It can, but my point is rather around "CEO changes should be carefully thoughtout".

In otherwords, sometimes it's better to keep the existing CEO even if the performance isn't spectacular because turfing them out makes the market think things are worse than the company is letting on.

So if you do replace a CEO, it's usually accompanied by a deliberate change in strategy and very carefully planned out.

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

#242

Post by ksec »

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…

>That said, I’m sure this is true for any large organizational unit

It is characteristic of all committee discussions and decisions, that every members has a vivid recollection of them, and that every members recollection of them differs violently from every other members recollection, consequently we accept the convention that the official decisions are those, and only those which have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials, from which it emerges with an elegant inevitability, that any decision that has been officially reached will have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials, and any decision which is not recorded in the minutes is not officially reached, even if one or more members believe they can recollect it, so in this particular case if the decision had been officially reached, it would have been officially recorded in the minutes, by the officials and it isn't, so it wasn't.

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

#243

Post by ClumsyPilot »

missedthecue wrote: post #207
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You claimed it's a democracy - obviously that's not the case.

If you think it shouldn't be a democracy, thats fine, but is just an opinion and not a factual claim.

You are, ofcrouse entitled to your opinion. Classically company consists of employees just like your body is made uo of organs. When you damage them by treating them badly, you damage the company.

In neoliberal idea employees are disposable and company is not harmed when you harm them. Company is a separate entity that lives by itself, like a holy spirit, maybe it posseses the stock market on the 'brand value', i don't know.

The current stunt by Elon musk will show who is right, if Twitter does well when he is done destroying the talent pool, then you are right. If the company combusts, then you are wrong.

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

#244

Post by chii »

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…

> the information they receive is extremely carefully managed in a way that allows responsibility to seem to flow downwards rather than upwards.

The Plan

In the beginning, there was a plan, And then came the assumptions, And the assumptions were without form, And the plan without substance,

And the darkness was upon the face of the workers, And they spoke among themselves saying, "It is a crock of shit and it stinks."

And the workers went unto their Supervisors and said, "It is a pile of dung, and we cannot live with the smell."

And the Supervisors went unto their Managers saying, "It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong, Such that none may abide by it."

And the Managers went unto their Directors saying, "It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide by its strength."

And the Directors spoke among themselves saying to one another, "It contains that which aids plants growth, and it is very strong."

And the Directors went to the Vice Presidents saying unto them, "It promotes growth, and it is very powerful."

And the Vice Presidents went to the President, saying unto him, "This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigor Of the company With very powerful effects."

And the President looked upon the Plan And saw that it was good, And the Plan became Policy.

And this, my friend, is how shit happens.

https://web.mnstate.edu/alm/humor/ThePlan.htm

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

#245

Post by lostlogin »

jollofricepeas wrote: post #225
kbenson wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> First, it’s not like bees get to negotiate their salaries and seek employment elsewhere.

They switch hives by accident, the beekeeper can cause it (to beef up a weak colony or by accident) and sometimes they do it intentionally, the males in particular.

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

#246

Post by lovich »

monkeydust wrote: post #233
astura wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot stress this enough - employee-owned companies are still dictatorships, the employees being shareholders doesn't change that at all. Employees get zero, and I mean ZERO, say over day-to-day operations or even major decisions. The SOLE difference between a non-employee owned company and an employee owned company is who the shareholders are. Source: personal experience working at multiple employee owned compani…

So what's a viable framework where employees can get an official say? My mind went to DAOs where employees all allocated governance tokens and anyone can propose a new idea and others can use their tokens to vote.

We don’t need to bring crypto into it for some amount of control. The poster above is referencing the same problem with any direct democracy which what you get with employee ownership being just shareholders and what you would get with handing out tokens. The solution is to vote on a representative/s who sit on the board much like the German example I mentioned.

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

#247

Post by missedthecue »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #243
missedthecue wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You claimed it's a democracy - obviously that's not the case. If you think it shouldn't be a democracy, thats fine, but is just an opinion and not a factual claim. You are, ofcrouse entitled to your opinion. Classically company consists of employees just like your body is made uo of organs. When you damage them by treating them badly, you damage the company. In neoliberal idea employees are disposable and company is…

I am a neoliberal, which is why I think that.

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

#248

Post by FrontierPsych »

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 why it is so extremely important to get out there and meet with people in the company, talk to them, look at stuff, rather than only get fed information by people. See what is really happening.

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

#249

Post by FrontierPsych »

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…

If anything bad happens in any company, whether incompetence, or something illegal, it is best to just leave. Don't fight it, unless the company is so huge that if you find a tax non-payment issue you get from 15% to 30%, and that would be worth $10 million or something like that.

But it is folly to report wrong-doing to the company. Just leave. The business will almost always close ranks to the superior.

There was a story I read recently, the head of personnel was a woman. A woman employee reported some kind of harassment to her. The company started giving the complaining women bad reviews, whereas before they were good. And they fired her. This was a woman who let another woman know. That woman human resources person took the side of the company.

I myself have been subject to a lot of situations where I was extremely uncomfortable to the point of where I wanted to throw up and leave. I'm a man. All of the people that made me feel this way were women. Talking about porn, their periods, sex life - you name it. And it was so many, not just one woman.

If I complained, they would have to fire 1/2 the female work force at the office. Do you think that there is any way in fluck that they would do this? No is the answer. And I eventually left. Easier to do that than stay there. I don't have the time to be bogged down by crap, I don't want to go to court for 10 years asking for some kind of payout for harassment.

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

#250

Post by thedougd »

colordrops wrote: post #218
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

Boards could have ICs that are voted in by fellow employees.

Better have an air tight employment contract if you’re expected to speak up and keep the executive management honest.
Post reply on HN