3 ms·
If that person who can do a better job exists and can be identified, we should hire them and not waste time worrying about how much they are paid. It’s more imp
by fshbbdssbbgdd 3y ago
If that person who can do a better job exists and can be identified, we should hire them and not waste time worrying about how much they are paid. It’s more important somebody else doesn’t hire them first.
Btw if you have some repeatable mechanism for proving the suitability of CEO candidates, maybe you should be doing executive recruiting for a liking.
- 1024core 3y agoOn what basis are people saying that he's responsible for the company's increase in valuation over the past 8 years? For all we know he's just sitting in his office twiddling his thumbs.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 3y agoIf I own Google, I’m not willing to run the experiment of hiring a thumb-twiddler to run my trillion-dollar company to save a few hundred million dollars. I’m willing to pay an extra hundred million dollars to hire someone who appears to be 1% less likely to be a thumb-twiddler, even though I don’t have an oracle that can measure candidates perfectly. If that oracle existed, the market wage would probably be 11 figures instead of 9. In reality, there are few people who have had to opportunity to show their ability to run Google. You have the small set of people who ran tech companies as big as Google, or who ran big parts of Google. Those people are in high demand, which is why 9 figures is the market rate for the most appealing of the bunch.