4 ms·

The reason management is well paid is because you need a way to motivate the very small group of managers that are qualified for the job. Wrong. There is not a

The reason management is well paid is because you need a way to motivate the very small group of managers that are qualified for the job. Wrong. There is not a "very small group" of people who are qualified to be CEOs at F-500 companies. There is a very small group of people who have enough connections to finagle their way into an F-500 CEO position, and that is why these positions pay so well. "CEO talent" is not some rare natural gift that very people have. The percentage of people who have the necessary talents isn't huge, but it's on the 1-10% order of magnitude, and there are plenty of capable people-- small-business CEOs, public-sector executives-- who would do a stellar job of it, given the opportunity. By and large, those people are not pulling down million-dollar salaries.

jmatt 18y ago
The percentage of people who have the necessary talents isn't huge, but it's on the 1-10% order of magnitude, and there are plenty of capable people-- small-business CEOs, public-sector executives-- who would do a stellar job of it, given the opportunity. If this was true, don't you think some business somewhere would have figured it out? It' naive to think businesses and their stock holders don't do what's in their best interest. As for small business owners - I know a few that pull down million-dollar a year profit. I think small businesses are often more profitable for the individual than being an executive at a big business. I think being an owner of a successful small business is infinitely more desirable than an executive manager at a large company from a personal perspective. I think it's comparing apples and oranges. "CEO talent" is not some rare natural gift that very people have. I markedly disagree. It's difficult job. Emotionally, physically, mentally. As the size of the company increases so does the demand on your time. Every moment of your time is taken up and you almost exclusively deal with difficult problems and marginal decisions. Likely these problems and decisions will require broad understanding of many technologies and meta knowledge about unions and politics. When making most of these decisions you will know partial information (which is in contrast to hacking where you likely can know all information available and understand it completely in many cases). On top of this you are setting the focus for the company both internally and externally and are responsible for all P & L goals set for the market. You are telling me 1-10% of capable people can do that? Or would want to do that for less than a million dollars a year? I haven't even gotten around to family, friends, social events, volunteering, vacation, etc. It's not like a moment of time passes where you aren't the CEO of a large company.
- time_management 18y ago
  If this was true, don't you think some business somewhere would have figured it out? It' naive to think businesses and their stock holders don't do what's in their best interest. The board sets the CEO salary-- not the mom-and-pop value investors, and not the traders who are shareholders one hour and short the company the next. Who's on the board? The CEO's friends, many of whom are CEOs in other companies, in which the aforesaid CEO a board member. So, invariably, they vote up each others' compensation. They get away with this because, although the CEO salaries don't need to be that high, it's not especially relevant to the company's success or failure whether it pays the CEO $500k or $5M per year. From a large company's perspective, that's chump change. It's difficult job. Emotionally, physically, mentally. Sure it is. So are a lot of jobs. When making most of these decisions you will know partial information (which is in contrast to hacking where you likely can know all information available and understand it completely in many cases). If you're doing anything interesting in technology, partial information is a permanent state. APIs and languages change, new libraries are built, and it's impossible to keep an intimate knowledge of everything that might be useful to the next project. You are telling me 1-10% of capable people can do that? Or would want to do that for less than a million dollars a year. Yes, and yes.
  - jmatt 18y ago
    Yes, and yes. Wrong and wrong. If it's so easy then tell me when you are CEO of a fortune 500. No more excuses. You say just about anyone can do it, so do it. ... that's what I thought.
    - time_management 18y ago
      You say just about anyone can do it, so do it. I said that at least 1% of the population has the capacity to do the job. I didn't say that I'm in that 1-10%-- although I probably am-- and I didn't say that I have the social connections necessary to get a F-500 CEO position-- I don't. There's a difference between being able to do a job and being able to get the job. I will agree with you so far as that far fewer than 1% of the population can get a F-500 CEO position, but that's not because they lack the necessary competence.

jmatt 18y ago

The percentage of people who have the necessary talents isn't huge, but it's on the 1-10% order of magnitude, and there are plenty of capable people-- small-business CEOs, public-sector executives-- who would do a stellar job of it, given the opportunity. If this was true, don't you think some business somewhere would have figured it out? It' naive to think businesses and their stock holders don't do what's in their best interest. As for small business owners - I know a few that pull down million-dollar a year profit. I think small businesses are often more profitable for the individual than being an executive at a big business. I think being an owner of a successful small business is infinitely more desirable than an executive manager at a large company from a personal perspective. I think it's comparing apples and oranges. "CEO talent" is not some rare natural gift that very people have. I markedly disagree. It's difficult job. Emotionally, physically, mentally. As the size of the company increases so does the demand on your time. Every moment of your time is taken up and you almost exclusively deal with difficult problems and marginal decisions. Likely these problems and decisions will require broad understanding of many technologies and meta knowledge about unions and politics. When making most of these decisions you will know partial information (which is in contrast to hacking where you likely can know all information available and understand it completely in many cases). On top of this you are setting the focus for the company both internally and externally and are responsible for all P & L goals set for the market. You are telling me 1-10% of capable people can do that? Or would want to do that for less than a million dollars a year? I haven't even gotten around to family, friends, social events, volunteering, vacation, etc. It's not like a moment of time passes where you aren't the CEO of a large company.

time_management 18y ago
If this was true, don't you think some business somewhere would have figured it out? It' naive to think businesses and their stock holders don't do what's in their best interest. The board sets the CEO salary-- not the mom-and-pop value investors, and not the traders who are shareholders one hour and short the company the next. Who's on the board? The CEO's friends, many of whom are CEOs in other companies, in which the aforesaid CEO a board member. So, invariably, they vote up each others' compensation. They get away with this because, although the CEO salaries don't need to be that high, it's not especially relevant to the company's success or failure whether it pays the CEO $500k or $5M per year. From a large company's perspective, that's chump change. It's difficult job. Emotionally, physically, mentally. Sure it is. So are a lot of jobs. When making most of these decisions you will know partial information (which is in contrast to hacking where you likely can know all information available and understand it completely in many cases). If you're doing anything interesting in technology, partial information is a permanent state. APIs and languages change, new libraries are built, and it's impossible to keep an intimate knowledge of everything that might be useful to the next project. You are telling me 1-10% of capable people can do that? Or would want to do that for less than a million dollars a year. Yes, and yes.
- jmatt 18y ago
  Yes, and yes. Wrong and wrong. If it's so easy then tell me when you are CEO of a fortune 500. No more excuses. You say just about anyone can do it, so do it. ... that's what I thought.
  - time_management 18y ago
    You say just about anyone can do it, so do it. I said that at least 1% of the population has the capacity to do the job. I didn't say that I'm in that 1-10%-- although I probably am-- and I didn't say that I have the social connections necessary to get a F-500 CEO position-- I don't. There's a difference between being able to do a job and being able to get the job. I will agree with you so far as that far fewer than 1% of the population can get a F-500 CEO position, but that's not because they lack the necessary competence.