C.E.O.'s Salaries
Discussion
I Know Nothing said:
WE can all admire the rare tallent of the CEOs in the airline industry at the moment. Cut services to the bone, pay crap wages and be surprised people don't want to work for your company, let customers down, while taking home a fat cheque and privalages
The airline industry does not appear to be blessed with a great deal of talent at the top I agree. That said, sometimes the CEOs role is to plot the least bad course and there is no good outcome. Suspect it is close to impossible to correctly size a large organisation with low reserves that veers between hardly any business and flat out within months, especially when there is a delay to hiring caused by security checks, to productive work by significant training needs, and when every other airline is competing for the same (reduced) talent pool.
The CEO that did spend more to hire more people earlier looks like a hero now, but if another variant had emerged or cost of living had put people off long haul etc then they’d have risked bankrupting the company and the more cautious ones would look like stars.
They may be idiots or the job may just be near impossible to do remotely well at the moment.
Tankrizzo said:
smifffymoto said:
Part of the problem and therefore bad image is when a CEO fails,he/she is very rarely punished.They still sail into the sunset with a golden good bye,thanks for nothing pay off,into the next highly paid position.
Absolutely does happen - I was at HP during this guy's short (10 month) tenure as CEO:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9o_Apotheker
Company lost 30 billion dollars in value during his ten months there due to decisions he made. For those ten months' employment, he got:
$13 million in pay
shares worth $3.56 million
performance(!) bonus of $2.4 million
and severance payment of $7.2 million
not bad for ten months and fking up a company.
We haven’t had much better since to be honest, although the current seems to be doing ok.
As with all walks of life, some CEO's fail, that doesn't make them all bad, some may have been superb in other roles, but fail in one particular role. But its typically the bad ones that make the news.
As for the pay, you pay to attract talent in a competitive market, its the same thing that makes footballers, pop stars, f1 drivers etc well paid.
As for the pay, you pay to attract talent in a competitive market, its the same thing that makes footballers, pop stars, f1 drivers etc well paid.
blueg33 said:
As with all walks of life, some CEO's fail, that doesn't make them all bad, some may have been superb in other roles, but fail in one particular role. But its typically the bad ones that make the news.
As for the pay, you pay to attract talent in a competitive market, its the same thing that makes footballers, pop stars, f1 drivers etc well paid.
Haven't read all the thread so apologies if it has already came up but what are your thoughts on the Peter principle? I'd generally agree with it although have seen it been used to justify some quite questionable HR policies that I'd disagree with.As for the pay, you pay to attract talent in a competitive market, its the same thing that makes footballers, pop stars, f1 drivers etc well paid.
I'm CEO (of a very small company), don't want to be, and definitely sometimes feel a bit of imposter syndrome. I was much more comfortable as CTO and much more comfortable again as senior management, more comfortable again as product management, more comfortable again as tech lead etc. Once upon a time I had a mission in life to become successful but never have to manage people, I f
ked that up. If you're the CTO and decide the CEO need's nixed you have to put up or shut up. I'm not on the crazy pay levels of those in blue chip companies, there are people in our company paid much more than me once you factor sales commission etc. I've friends that think once you're c-level you're on the pigs back, I haven't found that to be the case even in my small company world.When I look at those in roles where they're in charge of companies with tens or hundreds of thousands on the payroll I generally think "wouldn't want to be ya" but also think they can't have time to micromanage so in some ways I probably have more influence on our company's success than they ever will as it's just impossible to think you're critical to a huge organisation unless you've a massive ego - which to be fair some of them do.
blueg33 said:
crankedup5 said:
Persimmon land banked and built hell for leather on that land in order to take advantage of the Governments housing policy of affordable homes buying? The fact that the advisors to the Persimmon shareholders agreed to a bonus contract to sell X numbers of those homes for the CEO, leaving it uncapped (a major error leading the Chairman to resign) cost the shareholders £99million. This example is why I have little faith in the ‘expertise’ of decision makers.
What do you think land banking is?blueg33 said:
One of my many management training courses, suggested that an individual can’t manage more than 7 other individuals. I think that’s about right. The key to running a massive company is therefore to ensure you have the cascade right and that the right people are empowered
I've been offered managerial training but never taken it 
. I do enjoy your posts on the subject as we move in different worlds and I like reading a different perspective.I know some fantastic people managers, people who actually like it and are damn bloody good at it. But I'd agree on that 7'ish person limit and the cascade point.
A point of principle I never forget is that nobody's indispensable, myself included, but on the topic of this thread I can think of some very public very famous CEO's who've obviously earned their keep but they tend to be a bit psycho in their obsessions e.g. Steve Jobs or Steve Balmer types. But the fact that a board can easily replace most unless they own the company shows where the power really lies. (Why yes I do have to report to a board and occasionally think they're thick but I know my place
).What's going to happen to the ex-CEO of the Post Office Paula Vennells after all the subpostmasters scandal?
I understand she might be stripped of her CBE and she's had to stand down from her roles as Chair of Imperial NHS Trust and non-exec directorships at Morrisons and Dunelm.
Innocent staff members went to jail under her watch. What consequences should she suffer?
I understand she might be stripped of her CBE and she's had to stand down from her roles as Chair of Imperial NHS Trust and non-exec directorships at Morrisons and Dunelm.
Innocent staff members went to jail under her watch. What consequences should she suffer?
crankedup5 said:
I wrote a post about Persimmon CEO pocketing £99million and you ask me if I know what land banking is! From that I assume you agree that my example is a justified criticism. I have never seen poor developers struggle on, although I do not include the smaller businesses.
The persimmon ceo bonus that year was obscene and was not based on anything he had done. It was legacy. But it wasn’t from land banking, and from your comments, I don’t think you understand land banks at all. You have also chosen to ignore the explanations given to you.
roger.mellie said:
blueg33 said:
One of my many management training courses, suggested that an individual can’t manage more than 7 other individuals. I think that’s about right. The key to running a massive company is therefore to ensure you have the cascade right and that the right people are empowered
I've been offered managerial training but never taken it . I do enjoy your posts on the subject as we move in different worlds and I like reading a different perspective.I know some fantastic people managers, people who actually like it and are damn bloody good at it. But I'd agree on that 7'ish person limit and the cascade point.
A point of principle I never forget is that nobody's indispensable, myself included, but on the topic of this thread I can think of some very public very famous CEO's who've obviously earned their keep but they tend to be a bit psycho in their obsessions e.g. Steve Jobs or Steve Balmer types. But the fact that a board can easily replace most unless they own the company shows where the power really lies. (Why yes I do have to report to a board and occasionally think they're thick but I know my place
).CEO’ that started large successful companies tend to be like that in my experience.
A CEO that’s brought in is a bit different, he is typically a careerist that has played the game and is more easily replaced.
g3org3y said:
What's going to happen to the ex-CEO of the Post Office Paula Vennells after all the subpostmasters scandal?
I understand she might be stripped of her CBE and she's had to stand down from her roles as Chair of Imperial NHS Trust and non-exec directorships at Morrisons and Dunelm.
Innocent staff members went to jail under her watch. What consequences should she suffer?
It’s a good question and hinges on what she actually knew and the guidance she gave. I suspect it was a systemic failure, so it was her watch and her failure, but there are no sanctions. I understand she might be stripped of her CBE and she's had to stand down from her roles as Chair of Imperial NHS Trust and non-exec directorships at Morrisons and Dunelm.
Innocent staff members went to jail under her watch. What consequences should she suffer?
blueg33 said:
I used to work for Tony Pidgely, CEO Berkeley Homes. Very astute, very successful, totally psycho, and largely irreplaceable. Similarly John Morgan, although less psycho.
CEO’ that started large successful companies tend to be like that in my experience.
A CEO that’s brought in is a bit different, he is typically a careerist that has played the game and is more easily replaced.
Just deleted a reply as I've decided it would be a very bad idea to name some names. I'd love to get into this conversation but probably not a good idea. CEO’ that started large successful companies tend to be like that in my experience.
A CEO that’s brought in is a bit different, he is typically a careerist that has played the game and is more easily replaced.
FWIW I don't put founders and parachuted in CEOs in the same category. In my limited experience founders are often not on the payroll and employees can sometimes be quite oblivious to who actually owns the company. I'm slightly rambling as usual but just offering a different perspective, but CEO and owner/founder are two very different things in my view and that I've been first recruited employee in a company I didn't found might colour that view. Crazy thinking about it sometimes but I once had a board to report to that was larger than the number of employees and it was deliberately structured that way so employees could not outvote the board
. Fun and games until someone gets hurt.roger.mellie said:
blueg33 said:
I used to work for Tony Pidgely, CEO Berkeley Homes. Very astute, very successful, totally psycho, and largely irreplaceable. Similarly John Morgan, although less psycho.
CEO’ that started large successful companies tend to be like that in my experience.
A CEO that’s brought in is a bit different, he is typically a careerist that has played the game and is more easily replaced.
Just deleted a reply as I've decided it would be a very bad idea to name some names. I'd love to get into this conversation but probably not a good idea. CEO’ that started large successful companies tend to be like that in my experience.
A CEO that’s brought in is a bit different, he is typically a careerist that has played the game and is more easily replaced.
FWIW I don't put founders and parachuted in CEOs in the same category. In my limited experience founders are often not on the payroll and employees can sometimes be quite oblivious to who actually owns the company. I'm slightly rambling as usual but just offering a different perspective, but CEO and owner/founder are two very different things in my view and that I've been first recruited employee in a company I didn't found might colour that view. Crazy thinking about it sometimes but I once had a board to report to that was larger than the number of employees and it was deliberately structured that way so employees could not outvote the board
. Fun and games until someone gets hurt.roger.mellie said:
Haven't read all the thread so apologies if it has already came up but what are your thoughts on the Peter principle? I'd generally agree with it although have seen it been used to justify some quite questionable HR policies that I'd disagree with.
I'm CEO (of a very small company), don't want to be, and definitely sometimes feel a bit of imposter syndrome. I was much more comfortable as CTO and much more comfortable again as senior management, more comfortable again as product management, more comfortable again as tech lead etc. Once upon a time I had a mission in life to become successful but never have to manage people, I fked that up. If you're the CTO and decide the CEO need's nixed you have to put up or shut up. I'm not on the crazy pay levels of those in blue chip companies, there are people in our company paid much more than me once you factor sales commission etc. I've friends that think once you're c-level you're on the pigs back, I haven't found that to be the case even in my small company world.
When I look at those in roles where they're in charge of companies with tens or hundreds of thousands on the payroll I generally think "wouldn't want to be ya" but also think they can't have time to micromanage so in some ways I probably have more influence on our company's success than they ever will as it's just impossible to think you're critical to a huge organisation unless you've a massive ego - which to be fair some of them do.
I run a very small firm and often think we are a bit Mickey Mouse but then when I do some work for larger firms they often have the same issues on a much larger scale. It often makes me feel a lot better.I'm CEO (of a very small company), don't want to be, and definitely sometimes feel a bit of imposter syndrome. I was much more comfortable as CTO and much more comfortable again as senior management, more comfortable again as product management, more comfortable again as tech lead etc. Once upon a time I had a mission in life to become successful but never have to manage people, I f
ked that up. If you're the CTO and decide the CEO need's nixed you have to put up or shut up. I'm not on the crazy pay levels of those in blue chip companies, there are people in our company paid much more than me once you factor sales commission etc. I've friends that think once you're c-level you're on the pigs back, I haven't found that to be the case even in my small company world.When I look at those in roles where they're in charge of companies with tens or hundreds of thousands on the payroll I generally think "wouldn't want to be ya" but also think they can't have time to micromanage so in some ways I probably have more influence on our company's success than they ever will as it's just impossible to think you're critical to a huge organisation unless you've a massive ego - which to be fair some of them do.
I know how difficult it is to get one or two members of staff to change working practices, I can only imagine how difficult it is to get a national firm to change something
blueg33 said:
g3org3y said:
What's going to happen to the ex-CEO of the Post Office Paula Vennells after all the subpostmasters scandal?
I understand she might be stripped of her CBE and she's had to stand down from her roles as Chair of Imperial NHS Trust and non-exec directorships at Morrisons and Dunelm.
Innocent staff members went to jail under her watch. What consequences should she suffer?
It’s a good question and hinges on what she actually knew and the guidance she gave. I suspect it was a systemic failure, so it was her watch and her failure, but there are no sanctions. I understand she might be stripped of her CBE and she's had to stand down from her roles as Chair of Imperial NHS Trust and non-exec directorships at Morrisons and Dunelm.
Innocent staff members went to jail under her watch. What consequences should she suffer?
voyds9 said:
roger.mellie said:
Haven't read all the thread so apologies if it has already came up but what are your thoughts on the Peter principle? I'd generally agree with it although have seen it been used to justify some quite questionable HR policies that I'd disagree with.
I'm CEO (of a very small company), don't want to be, and definitely sometimes feel a bit of imposter syndrome. I was much more comfortable as CTO and much more comfortable again as senior management, more comfortable again as product management, more comfortable again as tech lead etc. Once upon a time I had a mission in life to become successful but never have to manage people, I fked that up. If you're the CTO and decide the CEO need's nixed you have to put up or shut up. I'm not on the crazy pay levels of those in blue chip companies, there are people in our company paid much more than me once you factor sales commission etc. I've friends that think once you're c-level you're on the pigs back, I haven't found that to be the case even in my small company world.
When I look at those in roles where they're in charge of companies with tens or hundreds of thousands on the payroll I generally think "wouldn't want to be ya" but also think they can't have time to micromanage so in some ways I probably have more influence on our company's success than they ever will as it's just impossible to think you're critical to a huge organisation unless you've a massive ego - which to be fair some of them do.
I run a very small firm and often think we are a bit Mickey Mouse but then when I do some work for larger firms they often have the same issues on a much larger scale. It often makes me feel a lot better.I'm CEO (of a very small company), don't want to be, and definitely sometimes feel a bit of imposter syndrome. I was much more comfortable as CTO and much more comfortable again as senior management, more comfortable again as product management, more comfortable again as tech lead etc. Once upon a time I had a mission in life to become successful but never have to manage people, I f
ked that up. If you're the CTO and decide the CEO need's nixed you have to put up or shut up. I'm not on the crazy pay levels of those in blue chip companies, there are people in our company paid much more than me once you factor sales commission etc. I've friends that think once you're c-level you're on the pigs back, I haven't found that to be the case even in my small company world.When I look at those in roles where they're in charge of companies with tens or hundreds of thousands on the payroll I generally think "wouldn't want to be ya" but also think they can't have time to micromanage so in some ways I probably have more influence on our company's success than they ever will as it's just impossible to think you're critical to a huge organisation unless you've a massive ego - which to be fair some of them do.
I know how difficult it is to get one or two members of staff to change working practices, I can only imagine how difficult it is to get a national firm to change something
crankedup5 said:
voyds9 said:
roger.mellie said:
Haven't read all the thread so apologies if it has already came up but what are your thoughts on the Peter principle? I'd generally agree with it although have seen it been used to justify some quite questionable HR policies that I'd disagree with.
I'm CEO (of a very small company), don't want to be, and definitely sometimes feel a bit of imposter syndrome. I was much more comfortable as CTO and much more comfortable again as senior management, more comfortable again as product management, more comfortable again as tech lead etc. Once upon a time I had a mission in life to become successful but never have to manage people, I fked that up. If you're the CTO and decide the CEO need's nixed you have to put up or shut up. I'm not on the crazy pay levels of those in blue chip companies, there are people in our company paid much more than me once you factor sales commission etc. I've friends that think once you're c-level you're on the pigs back, I haven't found that to be the case even in my small company world.
When I look at those in roles where they're in charge of companies with tens or hundreds of thousands on the payroll I generally think "wouldn't want to be ya" but also think they can't have time to micromanage so in some ways I probably have more influence on our company's success than they ever will as it's just impossible to think you're critical to a huge organisation unless you've a massive ego - which to be fair some of them do.
I run a very small firm and often think we are a bit Mickey Mouse but then when I do some work for larger firms they often have the same issues on a much larger scale. It often makes me feel a lot better.I'm CEO (of a very small company), don't want to be, and definitely sometimes feel a bit of imposter syndrome. I was much more comfortable as CTO and much more comfortable again as senior management, more comfortable again as product management, more comfortable again as tech lead etc. Once upon a time I had a mission in life to become successful but never have to manage people, I f
ked that up. If you're the CTO and decide the CEO need's nixed you have to put up or shut up. I'm not on the crazy pay levels of those in blue chip companies, there are people in our company paid much more than me once you factor sales commission etc. I've friends that think once you're c-level you're on the pigs back, I haven't found that to be the case even in my small company world.When I look at those in roles where they're in charge of companies with tens or hundreds of thousands on the payroll I generally think "wouldn't want to be ya" but also think they can't have time to micromanage so in some ways I probably have more influence on our company's success than they ever will as it's just impossible to think you're critical to a huge organisation unless you've a massive ego - which to be fair some of them do.
I know how difficult it is to get one or two members of staff to change working practices, I can only imagine how difficult it is to get a national firm to change something
I Know Nothing said:
WE can all admire the rare tallent of the CEOs in the airline industry at the moment. Cut services to the bone, pay crap wages and be surprised people don't want to work for your company, let customers down, while taking home a fat cheque and privalages
Few of us are close enough to the airline industry, at board level, to make an accurate assessment.It’s worth pointing out though, playing devil’s advocate, that as a CEO there are sometimes only bad choices available, therefore the skill is about choosing the least bad one…..
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff