3 ms·
CEO is the easiest to measure, because you just pass through how the company as a whole is performing against it's goals.
by rogerkirkness 4y ago
CEO is the easiest to measure, because you just pass through how the company as a whole is performing against it's goals.
- sokoloff 4y agoI'm not even sure it should be "against [its] goals", because the goals are chosen by the CEO. (Choose bad goals and accomplish them, and you're still a bad CEO.) It's just company performance, IMO.
- rogerkirkness 4y agoYes but company performance is based on financial outlooks. You say 'We will be this efficient with our assets and hit these revenue numbers' and then you do or do not.
- PaulHoule 4y agoThe CEO has the most opportunity to set the goals, make excuses, blame scapegoats and gaslight the board. Today OKRs have Narcissists running the asylum because they're always going to convince management that their glass is 70% full whereas yours is 30% empty.
- bluGill 4y agoCEOs need to be lookout ten years out. They have little control over this quarters numbers, or even this years. All they can do is changes that won't affect the bottom line for a while.
- rogerkirkness 4y agoThis is true in a phase three company that is in efficiency and future cashflow harvesting mode, but in practice you end up doing shorter term things too involving a crisis of people or execution.
- SkyPuncher 4y agoHow are goals set? How do goals account for macro economics? How do goals account for market constraints/problems? How do goals account for measuring against a theoretical "alternative" CEO that could have done better? It's much easier to be a bad CEO in a good market than it is to be a good CEO in a bad market.
- danaris 4y agoIf ExampleCorp has an objectively fantastic CEO, one who genuinely cares about the company and the well-being of all his employees, and actually understands something about how to make those better... ...and then he retires... how long would it take for you to be able to tell that his not-terrible-but-kinda-lousy replacement is actually not doing a good job? The first CEO set things up so that they'd run well; the leaders he put in place will be there for years; the deals he made will be good for a while (and all the new guy has to do is re-up them when he gets the chance). So for, say, 5-10 years, the new guy get slapped on the back and handed a fat bonus every year for Doing Such A Great Job CEOing...when he's barely doing anything. But then the situation starts to change. The companies they had deals with start to get bought out, or maybe they just stop existing. The good managers and other leaders the original CEO put in place start retiring or getting hired for bigger and better things. The new guy stops being able to coast. But obviously his leadership has been great this whole time, and he hasn't changed anything, so how could it possibly be his fault...? Our society and our industry are chronically unable to measure actual excellence, let alone reward it.