6 ms·
>However, if you bring in a new CEO to run your company, how can you fire the guy in less than a year, before that strategy has even been given a chance? You c
by commandar 15y ago
>However, if you bring in a new CEO to run your company, how can you fire the guy in less than a year, before that strategy has even been given a chance?
You can do it when the market has clearly responded to the new strategy by absolutely brutalizing your stock price[1], and when investors are in turn suing because the new strategy flies in the face of everything you've been telling them about the company for the past eighteen months.
[1] http://www.google.com//finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1316635200000&chddm=25024&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NYSE:HPQ&ntsp=0 http://www.google.com//finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1...
- jbooth 15y agoSure, you can do it but it's just CYA for a mistake of the board's. I mean presumably they discussed this strategy with Apotheker before bringing him on, right? He didn't just go rogue on them? So they approve the plan, bring him on, and then when people don't like it, jettison him as a scapegoat. Which is fine, don't play in the big leagues if you think life's going to be fair. But the board are at fault here.
- chollida1 15y ago> I mean presumably they discussed this strategy with Apotheker before bringing him on, right? He didn't just go rogue on them? Yes this is a certainty. No CEO could make a 10 billion dollar acquisition without board approval.
- commandar 15y agoAbsolutely. And I'm all for investors pushing for the board to resign. They've screwed up massively, and certainly had a hand in it all. Apotheker going is a good first step, though.
- pedalpete 15y agoAre we to assume that the new strategy had 0 involvement and approval from the board? Wouldn't such a major shift as this have required the boards approval? The board is almost as responsible as Apotheker. I always thought the new strategy was flawed either way.