I mean, it's a fair take to argue that CEO-ship ought to be meritocratic, in the sense of only hiring extremely exceptional individuals. If you're just an aver

I mean, it's a fair take to argue that CEO-ship ought to be meritocratic, in the sense of only hiring extremely exceptional individuals. If you're just an average jobsworth doing a merely 'decent' job, you shouldn't be the ceo of any company. It's kind of similar to airline pilots or surgeons, where we have to demand "excellence" as a lowest-common-denominator. At that level, they need to be graded on a reverse curve, where unlike regular grades, where a mere 65% score is a passing grade — for those folks, nothing less than a 95% should be a passing grade. It's easy to make the argument for airline pilots and surgeons, because the human tragedy that results from their potential incompetence is immediate and obvious. I feel like the tragedy that comes out of incompetent CEOs is a lot more insidious, and sneaky. Poorly run companies, and depressing "waste of life" has ruined a lot of people's lives. In fact, one could dare to surmise that it's actually, statistically speaking, directly killed a lot of people (an easy low-hanging fruit here would be safety stuff that OSHA doesn't cover), but there's a lot of mental health stuff we don't track as well. This whole line of thinking reminds me a lot of Florence Nightengale — her primary contribution to medical statistics was to take something that people brushed off as irrelevant or not-causal, and prove that it was a primary malefactor. She convinced the british top brass that the bulk of their deaths during war had nothing to do with enemy action, or even hospital deaths from injury, but literally was just caused by petty diseases, due to poor barracks sanitation amongst uninjured men.