> So who has control? The shareholders who appoint the board who appoints the CEO. > Why are we(the shareholders) paying the top CEOs if they cant control the

> So who has control? The shareholders who appoint the board who appoints the CEO. > Why are we(the shareholders) paying the top CEOs if they cant control their company? No CEO has 100% control of their company. > Why should they be rewarded for hurting us? You should have picked better. Like any employer, you are responsible for the ultimate cost of the actions of your employees. The title doesn't magically change that. > How do cultures get established and reinforced if not through management's expectations and actions? You should have the Board fire the CEO if you believe the CEO is the problem. It isn't like shareholders have no recourse. Ultimately, the Board/shareholders are the CEO's boss. The buck stops there as far as who is responsible for employing everyone at the company [including the CEO]. Simply because you want a scapegoat doesn't change where the power rests. > I think all of these questions point to the fact that we are letting those reaping the benefits abrogate the responsibilities. Yes, shareholders push for profits before other factors and have abrogated their civil responsibility by not picking differently. Instead, shareholders pick people that they think will maximize their personal wealth. Similarly, the C-suite is heavily compensated in stock and destruction and/or value loss of said stock impacts their personal financial decision directly. If you truly are concerned, you can always "lock" stock compensation for N years to keep the CEO from selling it so short sighted decisions will bite them on the ass even after they left their post.