3 ms·

CEO pay has grown wildly in recent decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_compensation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_co

CEO pay has grown wildly in recent decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_compensation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_compensation_in_the_... Does mean that CEOs are wildly more effective? Or just wildly better at diverting profit to themselves? I'd argue the latter. Further, CEOs and wannabes have a strong incentive to structure organizations such that they depend ever more on the CEO, justifying massive compensation and of course feeding their egos. But I would argue that beyond a certain size, having to route everything important through one guy is an organizational antipattern. So yes, I'm very willing to argue most CEOs shouldn't exist. Or at least most CEO positions.

sssilver 1y ago
My understanding is that every employees compensation (from the janitor to the CEO) is basically a function of “how different would the outcome for the shareholders be if this person was replaced with someone else”. Obviously Apple wouldn’t be Apple without Jobs, Tesla without Musk, and Amazon without Bezos. Moving on from founders, we saw the cardinal difference between Balmer and Nadella for Microsoft. So there’s some merit to their role. One could argue that from a shareholders perspective it’s the only role that matters. Every other role is an opaque “implementation detail”.
- SiempreViernes 1y ago
  > Obviously Apple wouldn’t be Apple without Jobs Right, that explains why Tim Apple got 100 million dollars in 2022, he was just that good at channelling the spirit of Jobs.