4 ms·
Well, there are two correct arguments: 1) If a CEO makes a company 5% more productive, that's worth millions of dollars. 2) More expensive CEOs aren't better.
by woofie11 6y ago
Well, there are two correct arguments:
1) If a CEO makes a company 5% more productive, that's worth millions of dollars.
2) More expensive CEOs aren't better. Indeed, they're often worse. The selection processes are political, corrupt, and wonky.
I could do a better job than the CEO of about half of the organizations I've worked at, /especially/ the larger ones. That's not a comment about me, but about them -- many of my co-workers would have done better than I would. But we never would make it to such a position, because the skills to become a CEO are very different than the skills to run a big company.
If you figure out how to align the two....
- burntoutfire 6y ago1) If a CEO makes a company 5% more productive, that's worth millions of dollars. Only when he's 5% better (making company 5% more productive) when compared against the next-best CEO available on the market.
- woofie11 6y ago... And that seems to be more-or-less a random die role influenced by corruption. Odds are, though, that CEO will be more than 5% different, and some people will /predict/ they will be more than 5% better (probably incorrectly). There really isn't any objective way to know who the best is, or who the next-best is. If we had a stack rank, it'd be an easy problem.