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

51–60 of 252 posts

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

#51

Post by bertil »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #42
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.

This can only be done if workers have actual ownership stake in the company enough to do this.

The idea is for HR to implement a reporting system that allow the team to give that feedback to someone high-up enough to do something about it.

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

#52

Post by fdgsdfogijq »

lazide wrote: post #31
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…

Bwahaha, I take it you’ve never actually been near anyone who has done that, let alone done it yourself? That’s total fantasy. If someone is really really good , it can look like they’re not doing much for anyone who doesn’t know what to look for, for the same reason a ships captain who is looking like they aren’t doing anything is usually a really really good one. The folks who directly interact with them often are…

This point of view isn't supported by org charts at large companies. If you were to compute the correlation between age of org and time in org of the business unit leader, you will get a very high number. It's high because people grow into the capabilities you are describing, just like someone grows into a Java developer. The opportunities to learn those skills are rare, and generally are never just handed out.

Again this comes from experience at two FAANGs. Most high level business leaders started 20 years ago. You can present whatever type of logic you want, the data doesnt support the logic.

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

#53

Post by Scoundreller »

rogerkirkness wrote: post #7
Apocryphon wrote: post #4

Random idea- has any corporation operated with something akin to term limits?

Huawei does this, I think every 18 months they change CEO among the leadership team.

Founder’s daughter has been CFO for over 10 years though

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

#54

Post by noasaservice »

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

That's a good question: Why not?

The USA "ideals" taught in school say that democracy and democratic republics are the best forms of government.... yet (almost) all our companies are autocratic dictatorships.

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

#55

Post by candiddevmike »

noasaservice wrote: post #54
siva7 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

corporations are not democratic institutions

That's a good question: Why not? The USA "ideals" taught in school say that democracy and democratic republics are the best forms of government.... yet (almost) all our companies are autocratic dictatorships.

Because it's under the guise of meritocracy, where if you just work hard enough, say 60 hours a week, you too can become CEO someday.

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

#56

Post by noasaservice »

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.

I like the term "Oligarchic kingmakers".

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

#57

Post by juve1996 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #10
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…

Wut? At higher level in an organization, there is a much greater chance that you will be fired for things that you really have little control over. Now, at the highest levels, the compensation usually matches this level of uncertainty, sometimes with golden parachutes as well, so if you are fired you're still sitting pretty. But, for me, I wouldn't define "a nice life" with having to deal with that much stress as hav…

Higher level executives typically have very strong networks built up. Even if they get fired, they're financially already well off and can easily find another role through their networks.

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

#58

Post by Keegs »

lazide wrote: post #31
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…

Bwahaha, I take it you’ve never actually been near anyone who has done that, let alone done it yourself? That’s total fantasy. If someone is really really good , it can look like they’re not doing much for anyone who doesn’t know what to look for, for the same reason a ships captain who is looking like they aren’t doing anything is usually a really really good one. The folks who directly interact with them often are…

> It is very difficult to find someone who can do it, and they command a premium because of it.

Is it difficult because people like this are rare, or because so few people are ever considered for these positions?

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

#59

Post by lovich »

andirk wrote: post #22
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.

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 called an interlocking directorate[1] and is why a lot of access to power and capital is class based and not meritocratic. It’s also part of why C level pay has skyrocketed as the members of the boards all happen to have C level positions and they all end up approving the pay increases of the people who get to vote on their pay increases

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate

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

#60

Post by JamesianP »

rogerkirkness wrote: post #7
Apocryphon wrote: post #4

Random idea- has any corporation operated with something akin to term limits?

Huawei does this, I think every 18 months they change CEO among the leadership team.

I understand they also don't get compensated much, relatively speaking. I think it fits with an Asian approach to business where companies are big conglomerates with much more cautious leadership (and therefore less expectation from them). At least historically.
Post reply on HN