4 ms·

> assume that the role of the CEO is more about "dont't * stuff up" as opposed to improve/innovate This is exactly wrong though, and demonstrates why laypeople

> assume that the role of the CEO is more about "dont't * stuff up" as opposed to improve/innovate This is exactly wrong though, and demonstrates why laypeople undervalue executive leadership. Staying still in an evolving market is a doomed strategy. McDonalds has transformed its image to stay relevant many times in the last few decades. McCafe is a great example of this. Also, the size of a company is a huge factor in the complexity of managing it. The more people you need to have pulling in the same direction the harder it's going to be. Leading tens of thousands of people without creating an obstructive bureaucracy that stifles innovation is very very hard.

soulbadguy 3y ago
> Staying still in an evolving market is a doomed strategy. And yet that's exactly what a lot of CEO have done in the passed and still have had great compensation packages. Like intel before Patt for example. > Staying still in an evolving market is a doomed strategy. McDonalds has transformed its image to stay relevant many times in the last few decades Sure, the "specific CEO" doing this evolving strategizing should/could be compensated "out of bound".The main point i am making is the life of a company is usually cyclical : Some crisis, some coasting... But CEO pays never reflect that. > The size of a company is a huge factor in the complexity of managing it. This is the logic that creates "empire building" inside company. I am not sure there is any evidence that this is correct. Again, i am skeptical that the size in term of number of employee is a "huge factor". Again we talking about companies which already have precesse, departement etc...etc... well defined
- thegrimmest 3y ago
  Have you ever observed that poorly performing employees are paid similarly to high performers? Sure there's sometimes a discrepancy, but it's generally within the same order of magnitude. The same applies for executives. Poorly performing execs are still remunerated appropriately for their position. You can't usually tell how well an exec has performed for at least a year or two, especially if they're coming into a chaotic (read: poorly managed) organization. Hopefully the organization is capable of weeding-out poor performers, but it's no easy thing. Again, the same goes for executives. Poor performers (should) get fired by the board. If they're not, the board is failing. In this case we're talking about an exec who has been at Netflix for 20 years and was one of the people who built the company from nothing. I don't think anyone is suggesting he is a poor performer. You seem to be labouring under the assumption that leadership is easy. It's anything but. Well defined processes, high-functioning departments, all of that is fragile as hell. A few key people turn over, formerly-respected processes start being ignored, things go to shit. This has happened time and again. One of the jobs of leadership is to keep people accountable. Why would anyone follow a process that no one is checking on? Especially if the person is new or they feel the process gets in their way (which it often does!).

soulbadguy 3y ago

> Staying still in an evolving market is a doomed strategy. And yet that's exactly what a lot of CEO have done in the passed and still have had great compensation packages. Like intel before Patt for example. > Staying still in an evolving market is a doomed strategy. McDonalds has transformed its image to stay relevant many times in the last few decades Sure, the "specific CEO" doing this evolving strategizing should/could be compensated "out of bound".The main point i am making is the life of a company is usually cyclical : Some crisis, some coasting... But CEO pays never reflect that. > The size of a company is a huge factor in the complexity of managing it. This is the logic that creates "empire building" inside company. I am not sure there is any evidence that this is correct. Again, i am skeptical that the size in term of number of employee is a "huge factor". Again we talking about companies which already have precesse, departement etc...etc... well defined

thegrimmest 3y ago
Have you ever observed that poorly performing employees are paid similarly to high performers? Sure there's sometimes a discrepancy, but it's generally within the same order of magnitude. The same applies for executives. Poorly performing execs are still remunerated appropriately for their position. You can't usually tell how well an exec has performed for at least a year or two, especially if they're coming into a chaotic (read: poorly managed) organization. Hopefully the organization is capable of weeding-out poor performers, but it's no easy thing. Again, the same goes for executives. Poor performers (should) get fired by the board. If they're not, the board is failing. In this case we're talking about an exec who has been at Netflix for 20 years and was one of the people who built the company from nothing. I don't think anyone is suggesting he is a poor performer. You seem to be labouring under the assumption that leadership is easy. It's anything but. Well defined processes, high-functioning departments, all of that is fragile as hell. A few key people turn over, formerly-respected processes start being ignored, things go to shit. This has happened time and again. One of the jobs of leadership is to keep people accountable. Why would anyone follow a process that no one is checking on? Especially if the person is new or they feel the process gets in their way (which it often does!).