3 ms·

Boards run corporations on behalf of investors through vague and soft guidance so as not to directly be considered officers CEOs are appointed based on their a

Boards run corporations on behalf of investors through vague and soft guidance so as not to directly be considered officers CEOs are appointed based on their ability to do what the board wants while shielding the board - this is why they get paid the most Until investors and the board significantly hurt, to the point where their investment is either a total loss, or they are liable for additional financial inputs then nothing will change

account42 2y ago
Ok but are you arguing for or against holding CEOs liable? If that big CEO paycheck came with some actual risks if you ignored ethics then maybe there would be fewer CEOs willing to do that.
- AndrewKemendo 2y ago
  I’m saying that its all a ruse Boards want the media to focus on the CEO because they are literally there to shield the board from accountability while “taking the brunt” of the bad PR - and also being a show piece for the company in good times So, the real answer IMO is to change the law to implicate board members and investors directly as though they are officers equivalent with the CEO is setting corporate direction and incentives Of course they have intentionally made the law such that any actions taken by the corporation, limit the liability of the board legally, while not taking the power away from the board to drive the direction and priorities and incentives of the corporation The whole thing is an accountability shell game - Wherein a CEO is the whipping boy for whatever the board needs them to be the whipping boy for - and there’s a balance and ownership The simplest way to put it is that the CEO is there to ensure that everything, the company does benefits investors primarily. Until it is legally the case that corporate leadership must prioritize the benefits to labor above investors, nothing functionally is going to change.

account42 2y ago

Ok but are you arguing for or against holding CEOs liable? If that big CEO paycheck came with some actual risks if you ignored ethics then maybe there would be fewer CEOs willing to do that.

AndrewKemendo 2y ago
I’m saying that its all a ruse Boards want the media to focus on the CEO because they are literally there to shield the board from accountability while “taking the brunt” of the bad PR - and also being a show piece for the company in good times So, the real answer IMO is to change the law to implicate board members and investors directly as though they are officers equivalent with the CEO is setting corporate direction and incentives Of course they have intentionally made the law such that any actions taken by the corporation, limit the liability of the board legally, while not taking the power away from the board to drive the direction and priorities and incentives of the corporation The whole thing is an accountability shell game - Wherein a CEO is the whipping boy for whatever the board needs them to be the whipping boy for - and there’s a balance and ownership The simplest way to put it is that the CEO is there to ensure that everything, the company does benefits investors primarily. Until it is legally the case that corporate leadership must prioritize the benefits to labor above investors, nothing functionally is going to change.