3 ms·

You are confusing CEO pay with CEO ability. There is plenty of examples of companies doing poorly until a new CEO comes in, and others of a company doing well

by bluGill 3mo ago

You are confusing CEO pay with CEO ability. There is plenty of examples of companies doing poorly until a new CEO comes in, and others of a company doing well until the CEO retires and a replacement comes in. Ivy types have a poor history of figuring out which is which in advance though.

mikert89 3mo ago
no its not like that, these people get plopped into positions of power, and alot of time theres no good way to assess their performance
- bluGill 3mo ago
  There are plenty of good ways to assess performance of CEO. However the important ones can only be run 10-20 years from now and so they are not helpful.
  - mikert89 3mo ago
    Right it’s like venture investing c very hard to evaluate short term
  - DangitBobby 3mo ago
    Is there? I don't see many control group companies working in absence of a CEO.
kibwen 3mo ago
There's an equally valid hypothesis that a "good" CEO is just one that keeps their hands off the levers of power, doesn't rock the boat or fuck anything up, and quietly lets a good company perform; whereas a bad CEO is one who, due to ego and self-aggrandizement, can't help but impose themselves via meddling and prevent a good company from performing. By that measure, you might as well save yourself the executive compensation and potential for disaster by just not having a CEO at all, despite what the executive class would have you believe. The aristocracy of old also argued that their titles were earned and that society could not function without them.
- mikert89 3mo ago
  yeah just sit there, keep a steady hand, and project confidence
  - sokoloff 3mo ago
    There are a lot of well-functioning organizations for which that’s exactly what’s needed. Leaders should be paid for outcomes not activities.
    - jmalicki 3mo ago
      Outcomes of leadership are hard to measure. If you pay by success of the company, noone is going to want to do a 5 year corporate turnaround.
- antasvara 3mo ago
  > a "good" CEO is just one that keeps their hands off the levers of power, doesn't rock the boat or fuck anything up, and quietly lets a good company perform How can you tell if a company is good? Because trillions of dollars are spent by banks, private equity, hedge funds, and others truing to figure out if a company is "good." > By that measure, you might as well save yourself the executive compensation and potential for disaster by just not having a CEO at all Sure, but somebody is still making the decisions the CEO would have otherwise made. Maybe it's a good thing that the power isn't concentrated in one person; I'd be open to that. But you now have to trust that each department head is making good decisions. That's fine if they were already making good decisions, hit it's disastrous if they weren't.
  - couchand 3mo ago
    And in truth it's a paradox. The better a company is (generally correlated to an empowered workforce with a sense of agency and purpose), the harder it is to extract profit for the capitalist class. Which helps explain the "need" for CEOs to meddle.
  - jmalicki 3mo ago
bdcravens 3mo ago
I think it's the other way around. They're not talking about CEO ability, they're talking about CEO performance, which aren't the same. Money follows performance (based on outcomes, not actual talent). It's like professional sports - win a championship, get a big payday, regardless of how it happened.
- shimman 3mo ago
  No, the only thing that matters is what you can negotiate. Since most executives + board vote on their own salaries, which ones have you ever seen negotiated to lower their salaries? It's an extreme abuse of power, especially since workers are the sole reason why a company is able to succeed or not and they don't get the same privileges as a board + executive. Not too mention most corporations + startups are setup to encourage the worse forms of human collaboration (dictatorships + centrally planned economies).

by bluGill 3mo ago

mikert89 3mo ago

no its not like that, these people get plopped into positions of power, and alot of time theres no good way to assess their performance

bluGill 3mo ago
There are plenty of good ways to assess performance of CEO. However the important ones can only be run 10-20 years from now and so they are not helpful.
- mikert89 3mo ago
  Right it’s like venture investing c very hard to evaluate short term
- DangitBobby 3mo ago
  Is there? I don't see many control group companies working in absence of a CEO.

kibwen 3mo ago

There's an equally valid hypothesis that a "good" CEO is just one that keeps their hands off the levers of power, doesn't rock the boat or fuck anything up, and quietly lets a good company perform; whereas a bad CEO is one who, due to ego and self-aggrandizement, can't help but impose themselves via meddling and prevent a good company from performing. By that measure, you might as well save yourself the executive compensation and potential for disaster by just not having a CEO at all, despite what the executive class would have you believe. The aristocracy of old also argued that their titles were earned and that society could not function without them.

mikert89 3mo ago
yeah just sit there, keep a steady hand, and project confidence
- sokoloff 3mo ago
  There are a lot of well-functioning organizations for which that’s exactly what’s needed. Leaders should be paid for outcomes not activities.
  - jmalicki 3mo ago
    Outcomes of leadership are hard to measure. If you pay by success of the company, noone is going to want to do a 5 year corporate turnaround.
antasvara 3mo ago
> a "good" CEO is just one that keeps their hands off the levers of power, doesn't rock the boat or fuck anything up, and quietly lets a good company perform How can you tell if a company is good? Because trillions of dollars are spent by banks, private equity, hedge funds, and others truing to figure out if a company is "good." > By that measure, you might as well save yourself the executive compensation and potential for disaster by just not having a CEO at all Sure, but somebody is still making the decisions the CEO would have otherwise made. Maybe it's a good thing that the power isn't concentrated in one person; I'd be open to that. But you now have to trust that each department head is making good decisions. That's fine if they were already making good decisions, hit it's disastrous if they weren't.
- couchand 3mo ago
  And in truth it's a paradox. The better a company is (generally correlated to an empowered workforce with a sense of agency and purpose), the harder it is to extract profit for the capitalist class. Which helps explain the "need" for CEOs to meddle.
- jmalicki 3mo ago

bdcravens 3mo ago

I think it's the other way around. They're not talking about CEO ability, they're talking about CEO performance, which aren't the same. Money follows performance (based on outcomes, not actual talent). It's like professional sports - win a championship, get a big payday, regardless of how it happened.

shimman 3mo ago
No, the only thing that matters is what you can negotiate. Since most executives + board vote on their own salaries, which ones have you ever seen negotiated to lower their salaries? It's an extreme abuse of power, especially since workers are the sole reason why a company is able to succeed or not and they don't get the same privileges as a board + executive. Not too mention most corporations + startups are setup to encourage the worse forms of human collaboration (dictatorships + centrally planned economies).