4 ms·

I am quite sure someone about as competent would do his job for far less. I got this feeling the higher you go the less skill based recruitment is and the more

I am quite sure someone about as competent would do his job for far less. I got this feeling the higher you go the less skill based recruitment is and the more connections and friends matter.

boeingUH60 3y ago
> I got this feeling the higher you go the less skill based recruitment is and the more connections and friends matter. That’s fact not feeling. There are very few positions at the top and an oversupply of skilled people willing to fill them. It becomes a matter of getting favored by the right people…sure executives put in the work but impressing the right people at the right time is how one progresses in the upper echelons.
- dfadsadsf 3y ago
  There is oversupply of people willing to fill high level positions. Problem is that if you want people who have proven that they are skilled (aka successfully held equivalent or higher position at similar company) the pool is much smaller and competition for them is much higher. In addition executive leaving is very disruptive (takes 6+ months to find new one, etc) so you want to pay above average so he does not leave which leads to arms race in salaries. On what executive mishire can cause just look at recent events at Flexport. It takes 1+ year to understand that executive is failing and course correction is extremely expensive and disruptive.
  - hotnfresh 3y ago
    Promoting up from within, and grooming successors who started low down the ladder in the company, used to be common. Now we hire straight in from B-schools at VP or director level, and one of those ends up CEO eventually (if a CEO's not simply hired from outside, directly). This practice seems to have dramatically increased the cost of executives. I wonder if it's increased quality. [EDIT] OK not straight from b-school, they have to do a stint in management consulting or whatever first. Because having that be something that the totally inexperienced do makes complete sense.
    - bumby 3y ago
      The idea of hiring straight from B-schools, without experience, tells me B-schools schools have decided to sell out to maximize student throughput. It used to be that very few people got accepted to B-schools without at least a decade or so of experience.
  - bumby 3y ago
    >In addition executive leaving is very disruptive (takes 6+ months to find new one, etc) Ironically, I read this as an indicator of a bad leader and one who doesn't deserve high pay. A good leader should be regularly training their underlings to make sure there are as few hiccups as possible if they get hit by a bus.
josephh 3y ago
Could you provide a list of names who can/are willing to do it for less? I think our executive recruiting folks (from a lage-cap company) would be more than happy to get some referrals :) /s
gongdzhauh 3y ago
You can say the same thing about professional athletes. Sure, there are bench players in the NBA that would love to start for the Warriors for half of what Steph Curry makes, and they'd probably do a pretty good job. They're amazing basketball players after all. They're likely in the top 1,000 basketball players in the whole world. But they are probably not going to lead the Warriors to a championship. In some situations it's worth paying for that extra little bit of skill+talent. I'm not sure if that small margin matters for running a major HMO, but I could imagine it does. And that small margin might just be having connections and friends. Maybe having those connections and friends is that extra value proposition that a good CEO brings.
- confidantlake 3y ago
  You can say that but the analogy makes little sense.
- bumby 3y ago
  I think a key difference is that sports regularly "tests" performance to help make sure the cream rises to the top. The practice squads are are playing the exact same positions to vie for a starting gig. How many B-squad business types get to head-to-head with an active CEO for long enough to see who's really got the chops? As a layperson, it seems like the research is mixed as to whether a specific CEO really matters that much to the bottom line. Despite the inconclusive evidence, though, they sure get paid well like it's a given that they really, really matter.
  - btilly 3y ago
    Overall, there is a negative correlation between CEO pay and performance. https://chiefexecutive.net/higher-ceo-pay-produce-better-company-performance/ https://chiefexecutive.net/higher-ceo-pay-produce-better-com...
    - bumby 3y ago
      There are other studies that show the opposite though and it's important to not draw strong conclusions from a single study. To quote one study: "compensation arrangements are endogenous and correlated with many unobservables, measuring their causal effects on behavior and firm value is extremely difficult" Frydman, C. and Jenter, D., 2010. CEO compensation. Annu. Rev. Financ. Econ., 2(1), pp.75-102.
jeffreyrogers 3y ago
Given the wide variation in quality among US healthcare organizations, and the fact that Kaiser has been consistently one of the better ones across most quality metrics, I think you are wrong and are underestimating the challenge involved in both running an organization of Kaiser's size and of recruiting an appropriate person for that role. I do agree that assessment is less skill based at those levels, but that is largely because the job is not hard skill based. That doesn't mean the person doesn't matter or that they are interchangeable. No one but Steve Jobs could've turned around Apple for example.

I am quite sure someone about as competent would do his job for far less. I got this feeling the higher you go the less skill based recruitment is and the more connections and friends matter.

boeingUH60 3y ago

> I got this feeling the higher you go the less skill based recruitment is and the more connections and friends matter. That’s fact not feeling. There are very few positions at the top and an oversupply of skilled people willing to fill them. It becomes a matter of getting favored by the right people…sure executives put in the work but impressing the right people at the right time is how one progresses in the upper echelons.

dfadsadsf 3y ago
There is oversupply of people willing to fill high level positions. Problem is that if you want people who have proven that they are skilled (aka successfully held equivalent or higher position at similar company) the pool is much smaller and competition for them is much higher. In addition executive leaving is very disruptive (takes 6+ months to find new one, etc) so you want to pay above average so he does not leave which leads to arms race in salaries. On what executive mishire can cause just look at recent events at Flexport. It takes 1+ year to understand that executive is failing and course correction is extremely expensive and disruptive.
- hotnfresh 3y ago
  Promoting up from within, and grooming successors who started low down the ladder in the company, used to be common. Now we hire straight in from B-schools at VP or director level, and one of those ends up CEO eventually (if a CEO's not simply hired from outside, directly). This practice seems to have dramatically increased the cost of executives. I wonder if it's increased quality. [EDIT] OK not straight from b-school, they have to do a stint in management consulting or whatever first. Because having that be something that the totally inexperienced do makes complete sense.
  - bumby 3y ago
    The idea of hiring straight from B-schools, without experience, tells me B-schools schools have decided to sell out to maximize student throughput. It used to be that very few people got accepted to B-schools without at least a decade or so of experience.
- bumby 3y ago
  >In addition executive leaving is very disruptive (takes 6+ months to find new one, etc) Ironically, I read this as an indicator of a bad leader and one who doesn't deserve high pay. A good leader should be regularly training their underlings to make sure there are as few hiccups as possible if they get hit by a bus.

josephh 3y ago

Could you provide a list of names who can/are willing to do it for less? I think our executive recruiting folks (from a lage-cap company) would be more than happy to get some referrals :) /s

gongdzhauh 3y ago

You can say the same thing about professional athletes. Sure, there are bench players in the NBA that would love to start for the Warriors for half of what Steph Curry makes, and they'd probably do a pretty good job. They're amazing basketball players after all. They're likely in the top 1,000 basketball players in the whole world. But they are probably not going to lead the Warriors to a championship. In some situations it's worth paying for that extra little bit of skill+talent. I'm not sure if that small margin matters for running a major HMO, but I could imagine it does. And that small margin might just be having connections and friends. Maybe having those connections and friends is that extra value proposition that a good CEO brings.

confidantlake 3y ago
You can say that but the analogy makes little sense.
bumby 3y ago
I think a key difference is that sports regularly "tests" performance to help make sure the cream rises to the top. The practice squads are are playing the exact same positions to vie for a starting gig. How many B-squad business types get to head-to-head with an active CEO for long enough to see who's really got the chops? As a layperson, it seems like the research is mixed as to whether a specific CEO really matters that much to the bottom line. Despite the inconclusive evidence, though, they sure get paid well like it's a given that they really, really matter.
- btilly 3y ago
  Overall, there is a negative correlation between CEO pay and performance. https://chiefexecutive.net/higher-ceo-pay-produce-better-company-performance/ https://chiefexecutive.net/higher-ceo-pay-produce-better-com...
  - bumby 3y ago
    There are other studies that show the opposite though and it's important to not draw strong conclusions from a single study. To quote one study: "compensation arrangements are endogenous and correlated with many unobservables, measuring their causal effects on behavior and firm value is extremely difficult" Frydman, C. and Jenter, D., 2010. CEO compensation. Annu. Rev. Financ. Econ., 2(1), pp.75-102.

jeffreyrogers 3y ago

Given the wide variation in quality among US healthcare organizations, and the fact that Kaiser has been consistently one of the better ones across most quality metrics, I think you are wrong and are underestimating the challenge involved in both running an organization of Kaiser's size and of recruiting an appropriate person for that role. I do agree that assessment is less skill based at those levels, but that is largely because the job is not hard skill based. That doesn't mean the person doesn't matter or that they are interchangeable. No one but Steve Jobs could've turned around Apple for example.