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

Ending the cult of the CEO

managementtoday.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 188 posts

Re: Ending the cult of the CEO

#61

Post by dahart »

> This focus has a devastating impact on the lives of CEOs... Leaders deserve to be happy too... solving the problems starts with communication... we need to wage war on this picture

A whole article about how hard CEOs have it, and not a single mention of CEO pay or the ongoing efforts to even get reporting of CEO pay ratios?

I mean I agree that CEOs get a ridiculous amount of stress and an unfair share of credit and blame, but if we want to fix it, I wouldn't start with platitudes like 'why don't we talk more', I'd start by paying CEOs less.

> The result is that a startling 100% of CEOs report that they suffer from stress and, according to research by Apollo Life, one in four say they struggle with insomnia.

Yeah, 100% of the population suffers from stress too. And I just googled it: 30% of the population suffers from insomnia. LOL.

Re: Ending the cult of the CEO

#62

Post by kobeya »

abtinf wrote: post #60
elihu wrote: post #36

The way I look at it, there are two kinds of CEOs. There are the ones that founded the company and have led the company according to their own personal vision. Many of them hold stock worth billions and they're generally looked up to as "captains of industry". The other kind is the CEO who is hired by the board of directors. They're usually very well paid and given a lot of stock, but aren't wealthy the way, say, Bil…

The caricature of investors as "the wealthy" is not connected to reality. If you are interested in having a retirement, you have a stake in the game - even if your entire plan is to rely on social security, someone has to make the money that will be taken and given to you. If you have an interest in a high standard of living or low cost of living, efficient investment decisions are vital to you. When you hire someone…

Investors in early-stage, non-public companies is pretty much limited to "the wealthy" in the U.S. due to regulatory restrictions.

Re: Ending the cult of the CEO

#63

Post by robotresearcher »

kobeya wrote: post #62
abtinf wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The caricature of investors as "the wealthy" is not connected to reality. If you are interested in having a retirement, you have a stake in the game - even if your entire plan is to rely on social security, someone has to make the money that will be taken and given to you. If you have an interest in a high standard of living or low cost of living, efficient investment decisions are vital to you. When you hire someone…

Investors in early-stage, non-public companies is pretty much limited to "the wealthy" in the U.S. due to regulatory restrictions.

Parent said "When you hire someone [to] run your fortune 500 company...".

Re: Ending the cult of the CEO

#64

Post by marplebot »

Was anyone else bothered by the way studies were cited in this article?

> 100% of CEOs report that they suffer from stress Anytime I see 100% I assume the study was bullshit.

> the death of a CEO causes a company's value to fluctuate by $65 million more today than it did 60 years ago (adjusted for inflation) I'm guessing the sample size here is pretty small or at very least a measure of absolute "fluctuation" doesn't seem like the right thing to measure. I can imagine a world where the death of Steve Jobs alone could have caused this effect. Also what was the fluctuation before was it $100 million? $1 million?

Re: Ending the cult of the CEO

#65

Post by Neliquat »

pixie_ wrote: post #21

I'd say the CEO acts as the primary role model and the employees/company often reflect the attitude of the CEO. Think of the workplace stereotypes of amazon - customer focused, google - side projects, spacex - mission, uber/oracle - aholes, apple - design, microsoft - developers , facebook - hackers, etc.. the CEO sets the tone and if you agree with it you'd probably like working there :)

Facebook = hackers?! To whom?

Re: Ending the cult of the CEO

#66

Post by WorldMaker »

kelnos wrote: post #55
mattnewton wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's older than that, how many innovations are credited to Emperors, and victories in battle to Generals? I think it must be the product of some parts of human nature.

Yes, I think people naturally need well-defined figures to look up to, to praise, and to try to emulate. It's a lot more powerful to say "George Washington" won the US Revolutionary War than to talk about all his subordinates, even when those subordinates made many independent wartime decisions that were essential to winning the war. And yet I can't even name one of those people offhand.

Alexander Hamilton is the next easiest to mind, due directly to the musical. One of Hamilton's complaints in real life and emphasized in the musical was that he wanted as much, if not more, to be as brave/glorious as the generals and soldiers of the War, but was "stuck" in such an inglorious position of being Washington's aide-de-camp and helping Washington run the war.

ETA: The explicit irony being that most of Hamilton's work during the war is of course attributed to Gen. Washington, and in the current zeitgeist the only reason people remember his involvement today being the popularity of a musical of a biography of his.

Re: Ending the cult of the CEO

#67

Post by elihu »

idoh wrote: post #48
elihu wrote: post #36

The way I look at it, there are two kinds of CEOs. There are the ones that founded the company and have led the company according to their own personal vision. Many of them hold stock worth billions and they're generally looked up to as "captains of industry". The other kind is the CEO who is hired by the board of directors. They're usually very well paid and given a lot of stock, but aren't wealthy the way, say, Bil…

Sometimes non-founder CEOs are worth it and can completely turn around the fortunes of a company. For example, Eisner for Disney, Kroc for McDonald's, Welch for GE, Jobs (the second time around), and either Ballmer or Nadela (depending on which one you pick). So I don't think the founder / non-founder distinction holds up.

That's true. I didn't mean to imply that hired CEOs aren't sometimes great leaders. I just don't think they get the same respect and admiration that founder CEOs do, and on average I think they tend to have somewhat different goals and incentives than founder CEOs.

Re: Ending the cult of the CEO

#68

Post by pyrale »

dikdik wrote: post #50
hkmurakami wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But I'd want to see a world where headlines like "Entrepreneurs are just rich kids" cease to be, because that headline is only created when entrepreneurship is put on a pedestal and is seen as something that is inherently superior to everything else. People wouldn't feel indignant that it is "unfair that rich kids have an advantage" at the entrepreneurship game (which they absolutely do), if entrepreneurship we…

> if entrepreneurship weren't seen as this holy grail mount Kilimanjaro thing. So you want successful entrepreneurs to be poor? It's only seen as a holy grail because it allows for tremendous fiscal success.

I believe there is room for nuance between poor and hundreds-of-millions rich.

Re: Ending the cult of the CEO

#70

Post by pferde »

dtietjen wrote: post #8
hkmurakami wrote: post #3

I really hope that we can end the cult of the entrepreneur as well. It's not some special thing to incorporate and start a company, and it's not inherently superior to any other line of work.

I'd argue the cult of the entrepreneur and cult of the founder are two different things. You're right, anyone can found a company. Entrepreneurship, on the other hand requires execution, vision, and creativity and is a real art.

And synergy, don't forget synergy!
Post reply on HN