4 ms·

It's because there's ultimately one person responsible for company's performance (the CEO), so everybody has to report to him/her through a tree-like structure.

by badpun 4y ago

It's because there's ultimately one person responsible for company's performance (the CEO), so everybody has to report to him/her through a tree-like structure. A company is a very centralized structure, no different than the army.

WJW 4y ago
"The CEO is ultimately responsible" is just the highest level of the carrot from my post a few levels up. A CEO may seem quite powerful from the inside of a company, but from their perspective they have to deal with competitors, shareholders, suppliers, regulators, and a host of other actors, all of whom have different objectives than the CEO and all of whom can constrain the possible actions of the CEO to varying degrees. Not to mention that many of the managers at or just below CXO-level are highly ambitious people who more likely than not have aspirations to become CEO themselves, so it may be in their interest to do some tactical backstabbing to make the current CEO look bad to the shareholders. All of this adds up to conditions where a CEO definitely cannot do whatever they want, because resources are limited even at this level. Just look at all the failed projects various CEOs at (say) Apple and Google have tried that didn't work even with all the money in the world. (As a former military officer, this is the same for generals btw. They may have a lot of "power" in the organization itself, but they're heavily constrained by outside factors. They have to make do with the budget they're given, and have very little control over hiring targets etc. Not to mention that during wartime the enemy will not be under control either)
- badpun 4y ago
  Yeah, of course. The CEO is judged based on how the company under his management is doing in its overall environment (vs what would be the baseline expectations), not just on the absolute numbers.
feanaro 4y ago
Perhaps there shouldn't ultimately be one single person responsible for the company's performance. I know the standard way things work, but that's not necessarily the best way.

by badpun 4y ago

WJW 4y ago

"The CEO is ultimately responsible" is just the highest level of the carrot from my post a few levels up. A CEO may seem quite powerful from the inside of a company, but from their perspective they have to deal with competitors, shareholders, suppliers, regulators, and a host of other actors, all of whom have different objectives than the CEO and all of whom can constrain the possible actions of the CEO to varying degrees. Not to mention that many of the managers at or just below CXO-level are highly ambitious people who more likely than not have aspirations to become CEO themselves, so it may be in their interest to do some tactical backstabbing to make the current CEO look bad to the shareholders. All of this adds up to conditions where a CEO definitely cannot do whatever they want, because resources are limited even at this level. Just look at all the failed projects various CEOs at (say) Apple and Google have tried that didn't work even with all the money in the world. (As a former military officer, this is the same for generals btw. They may have a lot of "power" in the organization itself, but they're heavily constrained by outside factors. They have to make do with the budget they're given, and have very little control over hiring targets etc. Not to mention that during wartime the enemy will not be under control either)

badpun 4y ago
Yeah, of course. The CEO is judged based on how the company under his management is doing in its overall environment (vs what would be the baseline expectations), not just on the absolute numbers.

feanaro 4y ago

Perhaps there shouldn't ultimately be one single person responsible for the company's performance. I know the standard way things work, but that's not necessarily the best way.