4 ms·
If the roles are both equally necessary, why does the CEO make so much more than the secretary? The CEOs entire enterprise is due to others. If anything explic
by oicU00 4y ago
If the roles are both equally necessary, why does the CEO make so much more than the secretary?
The CEOs entire enterprise is due to others. If anything explicitly highlighting that undermines the myth they’re the experts.
Both of your models rely on the CEO delegating to focus on the right state change for the business, so I’m not sure why you create two scenarios with squishy ideas of a CEO being efficient or slacking. Some CEOs have casual demeanors, others addiction to Adderall energy; neither is slacking if that’s just the vibe they need to “make it better.”
You seem to be circling the core meme it’s the CEOs job to improve the company and wrapping it up in subjective modals for doing so. Not sure how this refutes the article.
- margalabargala 4y ago> If the roles are both equally necessary, why does the CEO make so much more than the secretary? Most jobs don't set salary based on the necessity of having someone in that role, it's usually based on how difficult it is to find a capable person in that role. If there are 100k people capable of doing the job of the secretary, and 5k people capable of doing the job of the CEO, then the CEO will be able to negotiate a higher pay rate.
- oicU00 4y agoRight, the old supply and demand; a heavily accepted model drilled into us. It’s not the only viable one to the species. Given automation and first hand experience building analytics systems for VCs and investors; they’re not that much more capable. They’re humans at the same edge of knowledge as any grad of a decent university, of which there are millions. Teaching “stay in your lane” tacitly props up apathy and disbelief in the proles.
- mbrodersen 4y agoCEO’s routinely run businesses into the ground. So the question is if the hiring process for CEO’s is actually working as intended.