5 ms·
That would make sense if a significant amount of their compensation stood to be made during the contraction. However if your tenure is expected to outlast the
by jpgvm 4y ago
That would make sense if a significant amount of their compensation stood to be made during the contraction.
However if your tenure is expected to outlast the contraction then you would make more money in the long run by planning for how to be in the best position to exploit the market conditions during the next upswing.
It's hard to do that if you layoff crucial staff that are part of your growth engine.
- reisse 4y agoAverage CEO tenure is 5 years and it's going down. Personal anecdote: I worked at a large EU tech company, then acquired by even larger US tech company. For the five years there, I've seen five different CEOs with almost fully different teams of other C-levels. After the second CEO you clearly start to see how long the next one expects to reign - just take the roadmap and look where reasonable and achievable goals convert into pipe dreams.
- smugma 4y agoIn contrast, FAANGM’s have had an average of <2 CEO’s in the past 20+ years.
- reisse 4y agoYes, on the scale of FAANG, the "I won't be in this position after a year" attitude shifts from C-level down to upper and middle management. I think it's because when you're a CEO of any of top-10 S&P500 companies, there is no next position for you to take, you're already at the very top of your personal career pyramid. And I honestly think that in any of them, neither mass hirings nor layoffs are initiated by CEOs. I'd bet it's rather "one person pushes through the idea of hiring a lot of people, a year after another person pushes the idea of laying them off".
- smugma 4y agoAt least at Apple, Amazon, and Google, most execs have been there 10+ years. One of the challenges is people often think “where’s my growth going to be if my Senior Director/VP isn’t going anywhere for 5 years?”