CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?
newstatesman.com
CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?
1–10 of 363 posts
Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?
#2Well this would certainly diminish the jockeying for position of those hoping to succeed the CEO.
Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?
#3Automate management before they can automate us
Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?
#4Because people will figure out how to exploit the algorithm.
Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?
#5"If a role can be outsourced, it can be automated."
I really don't see the logic in this statement.
Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?
#6Board still needs a throat to choke somewhere...
Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?
#7Because people will figure out how to exploit the algorithm.
As if no one has ever figured out how to exploit the CEO...
Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?
#8The 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 work and maximizing your leverage against your co-workers. None of these shareholders want to live in a world where something can't be fixed by shouting at someone over the phone.
Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?
#9"If a role can be outsourced, it can be automated." I really don't see the logic in this statement.
To outsource something you have to be able to unambiguously specify requirements (otherwise costs blow up as you go back and forth). Once you’ve made it truly unambiguous, the next logical step is automation.
Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?
#10Why is paying them less not seen as an option? I've seen multiple startups struggle because their CEO makes more than 10 qualified technical staff, where the employees burn out because there's no budget to hire the technical staff the company needs.