3 ms·

I understand the spirit of your comment, but I want to point out > It is easier to blame a single person There is only one person to blame. The CEO.

crazygringo 6y ago
Huh? But the board appointed the CEO. So why isn't it the board? Or wait, the board was appointed by shareholders. So why isn't it shareholders? And so on...
- Judgmentality 6y ago
  The board can't be expected to know as much as the CEO, the shareholders can't be expected to know as much as the board, and so on. As far as I'm concerned, the #1 responsibility of the CEO is to take blame for fuckups. Yes, I consider that a higher priority than making profits. Because if the CEO is unable to make profits, then the CEO has to own the fuckup of not making profits.
  - crazygringo 6y ago
    But the CEO can't be expected to know as much as each VP, just like each VP doesn't know everything each manager knows, etc. Also, when profits aren't made, it's not the CEO who suffers. They already got their salary. Its shareholders who suffer. Sorry if it's not clear but my overall point is that accountability has to exist at all levels. The CEO isn't the position where all accountability emanates from or where it all stops. The CEO is held accountable to the board; VP's are held accountable to the CEO. The CEO is just one cog in the chain.
    - Judgmentality 6y ago
      I agree everybody has some accountability, but the CEO's job is to be accountable for everything that happens in the company. It's part of his job to get the information from the VP, and if he can't do that then he can't do his job. He also has the ability to fire the VP, something the VP cannot do in return. > Also, when profits aren't made, it's not the CEO who suffers. They already got their salary. Its shareholders who suffer. The CEO shouldn't have a golden parachute. And honestly, if the CEO's job is only to make money, he should be paid directly proportionally to how much money he made for the company! This isn't like an engineer where it's difficult to measure their value. You can just look at the stock price (assuming the company is public, it's slightly fuzzier for private companies) and pay based on hitting predetermined metrics or proportional to stock price. What I hear from these complaints is that no good CEO would agree to something like that. As far as I'm concerned this is a fundamental cultural problem similar to how the police reject body cams. If we pay them, they should agree to our terms. And if they don't, let's find replacements who actually want to work with us.

crazygringo 6y ago

Huh? But the board appointed the CEO. So why isn't it the board? Or wait, the board was appointed by shareholders. So why isn't it shareholders? And so on...

Judgmentality 6y ago
The board can't be expected to know as much as the CEO, the shareholders can't be expected to know as much as the board, and so on. As far as I'm concerned, the #1 responsibility of the CEO is to take blame for fuckups. Yes, I consider that a higher priority than making profits. Because if the CEO is unable to make profits, then the CEO has to own the fuckup of not making profits.
- crazygringo 6y ago
  But the CEO can't be expected to know as much as each VP, just like each VP doesn't know everything each manager knows, etc. Also, when profits aren't made, it's not the CEO who suffers. They already got their salary. Its shareholders who suffer. Sorry if it's not clear but my overall point is that accountability has to exist at all levels. The CEO isn't the position where all accountability emanates from or where it all stops. The CEO is held accountable to the board; VP's are held accountable to the CEO. The CEO is just one cog in the chain.
  - Judgmentality 6y ago
    I agree everybody has some accountability, but the CEO's job is to be accountable for everything that happens in the company. It's part of his job to get the information from the VP, and if he can't do that then he can't do his job. He also has the ability to fire the VP, something the VP cannot do in return. > Also, when profits aren't made, it's not the CEO who suffers. They already got their salary. Its shareholders who suffer. The CEO shouldn't have a golden parachute. And honestly, if the CEO's job is only to make money, he should be paid directly proportionally to how much money he made for the company! This isn't like an engineer where it's difficult to measure their value. You can just look at the stock price (assuming the company is public, it's slightly fuzzier for private companies) and pay based on hitting predetermined metrics or proportional to stock price. What I hear from these complaints is that no good CEO would agree to something like that. As far as I'm concerned this is a fundamental cultural problem similar to how the police reject body cams. If we pay them, they should agree to our terms. And if they don't, let's find replacements who actually want to work with us.