4 ms·

You sound like you're joking but it's true. There are a shockingly small number of people who are really capable of being a CEO of a large (or even medium sized

by harryh 10y ago

You sound like you're joking but it's true. There are a shockingly small number of people who are really capable of being a CEO of a large (or even medium sized company) and doing it well. It's an insanely hard job. And two of the biggest tech CEOs (Sundar Pichai of Google & Satya Nadella of Microsoft) are immigrants.

cmdrfred 10y ago
Going solely off the data I have[0] that seems to be untrue. Do you have some other sources or is this more "common knowledge" from the corporate sector? [0]https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2837504 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2837504
kesselvon 10y ago
The people that parrot this line are usually CEO's themselves, or people angling for the job at some point. I am amused about how CEOs take credit for successes but failures are always driven by external factors out of their control. The reality is that CEOs are as good as their underlings, as they do all the real work and advise the CEO. For that matter, CEOs probably shouldn't be pulling 100x earning multiples compared to their 'normally' paid employees.
- hnal943 10y ago
  People with your line of thinking are usually IC's who discount how difficult leadership is. How do you affect change without having to do everything yourself? That's a valuable skill.
  - blocktuw 10y ago
    "Do this or you're fired" will typically get those below you to produce the change you desire. Not sure how you can put that much value on a skill inherit to a hierarchical organization. If the organization was flat, then I would concede your point that affecting change without any seniority would be difficult and worth extra compensation. A true leader would need to be persuasive, knowledgeable and visionary. What you describe as "leadership" is people doing their job.
    - harryh 10y ago
      "Do this or you're fired" will typically get those below you to produce the change you desire. LOL. If this were true it would be so much easier. But talented employees, who can easily get another job across the street, are more likely to laugh at you then do what you want if you talk to them like that.
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        "Robert we have to complete this report by Thursday" == "Robert work overtime to complete this report by Thursday, or you will be fired" So the main skill of a CEO is he can ask nicely?
        harryh 10y ago
        (We've gotten a bit off topic this deep in the thread. At this point we're really just talking about general management skills which really isn't a big thing for a CEO of any reasonably sized company. That being said....) Robert: Sorry I can't work late this week. It's my kid's birthday tomorrow.
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        Boss: "Robert isn't a team player, let's contrive a reason to fire him so we don't have to pay unemployment."
        harryh 10y ago
        Back in the real world it's not unemployment that you're gonna worry about. It's how much severance you're going to pay him. Somewhere between 1 and 3 months. Which he'll use to take a nice vacation and then easily go get another job whenever he's ready. And you'll be down a talented employee that's hard to replace. Nice work!
        cmdrfred 10y ago
  - kesselvon 10y ago
    People that hero worship CEO's have probably never had to work with any.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    Most people come in to do defined jobs. Most initiatives that are innovative or risky come from below the CEO without CEO's influence. CEO's have little input on day-to-day operations of big companies. Add to it that many companies minimizing both management and CEO pay are among highest performers. Several models include Publix, Costco, Whole Foods, and I recently found Semler. http://www.freibergs.com/resources/articles/leadership/semco-insanity-that-works/ http://www.freibergs.com/resources/articles/leadership/semco... Semler is a good example showing the opposite model works in difficult, high-innovation sectors in the worst economy possible with least management possible. Just has to be set up right. On other end, Toyota Production System, Publix, and Whole Foods strategies draw most innovation out of people lower in hierarchy with excellent results. Heavily-managed, hierarchical companies are among the least innovative normally just acquiring companies for it. So, CEO's should be payed way, way less than they are right now with most senior managers just eliminated in favor of interacting, small teams or divisions. Much of the administrative stuff could similarly be outsourced to lean organizations focusing on that stuff.
wott 10y ago
Nonsense. It is much more demanding, involving and decisive to be CEO of a small company. In a large company, a CEO is merely a spokesperson for his advisors.
hx87 10y ago
> There are a shockingly small number of people who are really capable of being a CEO of a large (or even medium sized company) and doing it well. How much of this is due to genetics and prenatal environment and how much to education and life experiences? If the former dominates there isn't much we can do for now, but if it's the latter, there's gotta be a massive market for CEO-schools, both public and private. Personally, I suspect that the limiting factor is social capital--most CEOs get hired because they're known among people connected to the board, and it's hard to get known. I'm not sure what the solution in this case is though, except maybe more residential desegregation by class and ethnicity.
- hockley 10y ago
  Don't confuse being known with being trusted. One is a prerequisite for the other, but they are not the same thing. It's not so much who you know as it is who trusts you.
  - hx87 10y ago
    That's certainly true. I wonder if there is a way to increase the number of people who are trustworthy and seen as trustworthy in a given social circle?

by harryh 10y ago

cmdrfred 10y ago

Going solely off the data I have[0] that seems to be untrue. Do you have some other sources or is this more "common knowledge" from the corporate sector? [0]https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2837504 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2837504

kesselvon 10y ago

The people that parrot this line are usually CEO's themselves, or people angling for the job at some point. I am amused about how CEOs take credit for successes but failures are always driven by external factors out of their control. The reality is that CEOs are as good as their underlings, as they do all the real work and advise the CEO. For that matter, CEOs probably shouldn't be pulling 100x earning multiples compared to their 'normally' paid employees.

hnal943 10y ago
People with your line of thinking are usually IC's who discount how difficult leadership is. How do you affect change without having to do everything yourself? That's a valuable skill.
- blocktuw 10y ago
  "Do this or you're fired" will typically get those below you to produce the change you desire. Not sure how you can put that much value on a skill inherit to a hierarchical organization. If the organization was flat, then I would concede your point that affecting change without any seniority would be difficult and worth extra compensation. A true leader would need to be persuasive, knowledgeable and visionary. What you describe as "leadership" is people doing their job.
  - harryh 10y ago
    "Do this or you're fired" will typically get those below you to produce the change you desire. LOL. If this were true it would be so much easier. But talented employees, who can easily get another job across the street, are more likely to laugh at you then do what you want if you talk to them like that.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      "Robert we have to complete this report by Thursday" == "Robert work overtime to complete this report by Thursday, or you will be fired" So the main skill of a CEO is he can ask nicely?
      - harryh 10y ago
        (We've gotten a bit off topic this deep in the thread. At this point we're really just talking about general management skills which really isn't a big thing for a CEO of any reasonably sized company. That being said....) Robert: Sorry I can't work late this week. It's my kid's birthday tomorrow.
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        Boss: "Robert isn't a team player, let's contrive a reason to fire him so we don't have to pay unemployment."
        harryh 10y ago
        Back in the real world it's not unemployment that you're gonna worry about. It's how much severance you're going to pay him. Somewhere between 1 and 3 months. Which he'll use to take a nice vacation and then easily go get another job whenever he's ready. And you'll be down a talented employee that's hard to replace. Nice work!
        cmdrfred 10y ago
- kesselvon 10y ago
  People that hero worship CEO's have probably never had to work with any.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  Most people come in to do defined jobs. Most initiatives that are innovative or risky come from below the CEO without CEO's influence. CEO's have little input on day-to-day operations of big companies. Add to it that many companies minimizing both management and CEO pay are among highest performers. Several models include Publix, Costco, Whole Foods, and I recently found Semler. http://www.freibergs.com/resources/articles/leadership/semco-insanity-that-works/ http://www.freibergs.com/resources/articles/leadership/semco... Semler is a good example showing the opposite model works in difficult, high-innovation sectors in the worst economy possible with least management possible. Just has to be set up right. On other end, Toyota Production System, Publix, and Whole Foods strategies draw most innovation out of people lower in hierarchy with excellent results. Heavily-managed, hierarchical companies are among the least innovative normally just acquiring companies for it. So, CEO's should be payed way, way less than they are right now with most senior managers just eliminated in favor of interacting, small teams or divisions. Much of the administrative stuff could similarly be outsourced to lean organizations focusing on that stuff.

wott 10y ago

Nonsense. It is much more demanding, involving and decisive to be CEO of a small company. In a large company, a CEO is merely a spokesperson for his advisors.

hx87 10y ago

> There are a shockingly small number of people who are really capable of being a CEO of a large (or even medium sized company) and doing it well. How much of this is due to genetics and prenatal environment and how much to education and life experiences? If the former dominates there isn't much we can do for now, but if it's the latter, there's gotta be a massive market for CEO-schools, both public and private. Personally, I suspect that the limiting factor is social capital--most CEOs get hired because they're known among people connected to the board, and it's hard to get known. I'm not sure what the solution in this case is though, except maybe more residential desegregation by class and ethnicity.

hockley 10y ago
Don't confuse being known with being trusted. One is a prerequisite for the other, but they are not the same thing. It's not so much who you know as it is who trusts you.
- hx87 10y ago
  That's certainly true. I wonder if there is a way to increase the number of people who are trustworthy and seen as trustworthy in a given social circle?