Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?

newstatesman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 363 posts

Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?

#331

Post by m463 »

woeirua wrote: post #116

I too used to think that CEOs were a waste of resources, and that they had minimal if any impact on most companies. But I think people grossly underestimate how important CEOs are, because the vast majority of them do a decent job. When you swap out somebody who does a decent job for another person who performs at about the same level it's not really that noticeable. That said, you'll come to appreciate those "decent…

The example I would think of is getting a budget lawyer for something important.

You need someone that can give the time and attention - except you would be better off with a human that can do the right thing poorly, instead of a robot that can do the wrong thing well.

Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?

#332

Post by Can_Not »

fighterpilot wrote: post #268
warent wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going off on a tangent here, but I'm curious to know what would be meaningless and boring about it. This would permanently solve the first two foundations of Maslow's hierarchy of needs so people can focus on the top three. It could be argued that the truth is actually the reverse: it would enable most people to find a much deeper meaning, while only an exclusive few (probably mostly pathological people, like sociopa…

You're possibly right, but do people who inherit millions or win the lottery strike you as particularly happy after 10 years? Admittedly, I only have anecdotal data on that.

The ones that were able to keep their anonymity and didn't engage in fiscally irresponsible behavior like drug purchases and $200k+ vehicles are probably very happy after 10 years.

Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?

#333

Post by SavantIdiot »

koonsolo wrote: post #269
SavantIdiot wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you have never been on a board of a company and had the responsibility to hire and fire them. Think about that statement, just for 5 seconds. Please. You do realize very, very few people meet this criteria. And their opinions still matter because they are impacted.

I don't know if you are a programmer, but next time when you make a technical or architectural decision, make sure you consult your users, because their opinions still matter because they are impacted. Your statement is absurd because being impacted has nothing to do with having the knowledge to talk about a subject.

Oh for fuck's sake, its a message board, not a goddamn missile defense system. Get off your high horse.

Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?

#334

Post by TrackerFF »

smoldesu wrote: post #8

The reason we don't automate CEOs is liability: the board of directors/shareholders want someone to hold accountable when bad decisions start getting made. If you pay $4000 for a brand new iCEO that lays off your entire staff, you can really only scream at whoever minted the software making that decision, which often comes with limited liability licenses. Remember, corporate structure is about minimizing your own wor…

That liability is already outsourced to consulting firm, unfortunately.

Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?

#335

Post by [deleted] »

newsbinator wrote: post #218
hh3k0 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do agree, in German we have an idiom "Der Fisch stinkt vom Kopf her" ("a fish rots from the head down") to describe precisely how bad management cause ripples all the way down. That being said, CEOs are still prime candidates for automatization. I mean, surely nobody wants to replace good CEOs with bad software but rather with equally or better performing software equivalents. Additionally, one day it might be easi…

I google'd around and I can't find anything conclusive about whether a fish literally rots from the head down. I'd be curious if it's merely an expression or a true thing about fish.

[deleted]

Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?

#336

Post by Nevaeh »

newsbinator wrote: post #218
hh3k0 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do agree, in German we have an idiom "Der Fisch stinkt vom Kopf her" ("a fish rots from the head down") to describe precisely how bad management cause ripples all the way down. That being said, CEOs are still prime candidates for automatization. I mean, surely nobody wants to replace good CEOs with bad software but rather with equally or better performing software equivalents. Additionally, one day it might be easi…

I google'd around and I can't find anything conclusive about whether a fish literally rots from the head down. I'd be curious if it's merely an expression or a true thing about fish.

  In reality, it is the guts of fish that rot and stink before the head.
Source: https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/fish-rot-from-the-head-d...

  The guts of fish will start to rot quickly and spread terrible bacteria and disease throughout the entire fish.
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Survival/comments/mv04em/is_gutting...

Hope this helps. I'm not sure why you were downvoted for expressing curiosity about fish biology.

Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?

#337

Post by koonsolo »

SavantIdiot wrote: post #314
koonsolo wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing with opinions is that everybody has one. I much rather read insightful knowledge from people that know what they are talking about. And that is my opinion.

Sorry, us plebes down here in the dirt bow to your lofty white high-horse.

I am also plebes, but I would love to learn from successful people.

Uninformed opinions teaches me nothing.

Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?

#338

Post by koonsolo »

jordanpg wrote: post #306
koonsolo wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say you invest $10M in your company, and I also have a competing $10M company. I go the traditional route and hire a top CEO with a big chunk of money. The rest of the workforce gets what they get elsewhere. You hire a CEO that is "fairly" compensated. You will basically need to make a bet on someone non-established, and hope they can perform. With the extra money, you can either hire better talent or hire more…

You're just reiterating the premise that higher-paid CEOs are more talented. I'm saying I doubt that that's actually true. I think higher-paid CEOs bring something to the table, but it isn't talent. It's something more connected to an entrenched, corrupt system that has--incredibly--achieved buy-in from global capital markets. I suspect it has more to do with access, background, friends, networks, gumption, dedicatio…

I agree that they also need to bring those things to the table. But "talent" is a personal trait right, so I guess that includes dedication and gumption.

Plus, being able to perform under high stress, being a great communicator, organiser, putting processes into place, dealing with all kinds of personalities, convincing customers, providing certainty in an uncertain environmemt to customers, employees and investors, etc.

Your claim that anyone can do that is simply not true.

Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?

#339

Post by gtyras2mrs »

robertlagrant wrote: post #281
xmprt wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem I have with CEOs is when they're doing a good job they make $$$ but when they're doing a bad job they still make $$. When a company goes down, they have golden parachutes to ensure that they're safe. Meanwhile, workers get shafted.

CEOs are workers. If you're talking about people who don't work for the business, you might be thinking of shareholders?

I don't think he's complaining the the CEOs get paid a salary. I think he's saying that even when a CEO massively screws up - they get a multi-million dollar golden parachute.

Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?

#340

Post by gtyras2mrs »

koonsolo wrote: post #297
rybosworld wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A famous one is DPR Construction: https://www.dpr.com/media/blog/wsj-ceo They have 3 people (the co-founders) sharing the role/responsibilities of CEO.

Strange reasoning: "Show me a person without a car". "Here you go, this person has 3". So 3 founders are running the company, nothing special about that. Please show me a company without a CEO.

Doesn't seem like 'strange reasoning' at all. Since the comment was like 'having only 1 driver is likely to be a liability', to which you responded 'show me a vehicle with no drivers' and you got a response saying 'this vehicle has 3 drivers'

The strange reasoning is taking the the statement that said "just one driver could be a liability" and asking for vehicles with no drivers.

Post reply on HN