sure (and upvoted) but I was just using "incompetent as incompetent does" as the guiding rule, not really looking at past records etc. What exactly did she do a

sure (and upvoted) but I was just using "incompetent as incompetent does" as the guiding rule, not really looking at past records etc. What exactly did she do at Yahoo anyway that made the situation there better? AFAIK the good engineers at Yahoo are running out the door as fast as they can. Not sure that is the sign of a thriving company (but then I have zero upper management experience etc and am just a dev and so could be missing something very obvious - and hence the question). That said, feel free to substitute Bartz with anyone else you consider an incompetent CEO. Doesn't affect my post much. My curiosity is about what the hiring of CEOs at great cost then firing them (also at great cost), and replacing them with even more dubious people, reveals about the system and the forces at play. For eg: if Apotheker was let go at SAP then what made him a good choice for HP?If he couldn't be an effective CEO at SAP which is an enterprise software company, then how is he a good choice for turning HP into an enterprise software company? I just don't get the logic there. Why aren't the people who made that decision now being fired along with Apotheker? How are such decisions taken, and more importantly how do such poor decisions survive the scrutiny of investors etc?