C.E.O.'s Salaries

[I Know Nothing]

67Dino said:

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.

Well they shouldn't have taken the bookings, how much do you have to pay someone to work that one out?

How well are most large companies actually run, most seem to have crap service, at least these serving the public do. They are run on cost cutting anfd making a fast profit in the short term.

[I Know Nothing]

blueg33 said:

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.

So why does the competitive market not work lower down?

Went KFC the other day which was closed, why no staff. Worked for a company not so long ago that needed 36 HGV (employed 250) drivers, arranged ten interviews, three turned up. Also needed a couple of cleaners, ran an ad, no one answered.

The answer is to pay more, but they won't!

Edited by I Know Nothing on Thursday 2nd June 16:38

[blueg33]

I Know Nothing said:

So why does the competitive market not work lower down?

Went KFC the other day which was closed, why no staff. Worked for a company not so long ago that needed 36 HGV (employed 250) drivers, arranged ten interviews, three turned up. Also needed a couple of cleaners, ran an ad, no one answered.

The answer is to pay more, but they won't!

Edited by I Know Nothing on Thursday 2nd June 16:38

It does work lower down but I guess it takes a while for the employers and the market to realise.

You also have the tension with increasing the cost of the product which could mean you lose customers

[67Dino]

I Know Nothing said:

67Dino said:

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.
…..
They may be idiots or the job may just be near impossible to do remotely well at the moment.

Well they shouldn't have taken the bookings, how much do you have to pay someone to work that one out?

….

I totally agree with this. Grossly unfair to have someone promised a flight and plan their holiday around it, and then not provide it. It may be hard to plan, but they should have erred on the side of caution.

[otolith]

roger.mellie said:

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.

Sounds painfully familiar, though the people who earn more than me are tech not sales.

I was the only one working today.

[GT03ROB]

Muzzer79 said:

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…..

My wife dated one of them who is CEO at one of the companies in the middle of the current debacles for about 10years many moons ago. She still talks to him occasionally. Her view was his rare talent was to be an arrogant, self centred, none too bright, South African who the spitting Image song could have been written about (yes she did dump him eventually)! I need to remind her he’s in the middle of the current mess!

[anonymous-user]

GT03ROB said:

Muzzer79 said:

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…..

My wife dated one of them who is CEO at one of the companies in the middle of the current debacles for about 10years many moons ago. She still talks to him occasionally. Her view was his rare talent was to be an arrogant, self centred, none too bright, South African who the spitting Image song could have been written about (yes she did dump him eventually)! I need to remind her he’s in the middle of the current mess!

Of course she dumped him. The “Being told…” thread is >>>

[skwdenyer]

67Dino said:

I totally agree with this. Grossly unfair to have someone promised a flight and plan their holiday around it, and then not provide it. It may be hard to plan, but they should have erred on the side of caution.

The fault is in regulation. If companies were compelled to honour flights on penalty of, say, 10x holiday cost as compensation, you'd see a major turnaround pretty fast. Yes, holidays would go up in price, but everyone would get their flight.

It would also re-introduce the era of the standby ticket, since spare seats would be likely.

Instead, "we prefer" a deregulated market in which companies can promise lots and delivery little when it suits them. The same model that gave us the "miracle" or start-up energy intermediaries taking profits until the market turned against them.

[crankedup5]

skwdenyer said:

67Dino said:

I totally agree with this. Grossly unfair to have someone promised a flight and plan their holiday around it, and then not provide it. It may be hard to plan, but they should have erred on the side of caution.

The fault is in regulation. If companies were compelled to honour flights on penalty of, say, 10x holiday cost as compensation, you'd see a major turnaround pretty fast. Yes, holidays would go up in price, but everyone would get their flight.

It would also re-introduce the era of the standby ticket, since spare seats would be likely.

Instead, "we prefer" a deregulated market in which companies can promise lots and delivery little when it suits them. The same model that gave us the "miracle" or start-up energy intermediaries taking profits until the market turned against them.

Do you foresee major changes to the industry approaching fast or will it be back to business as usual in your view ? Given that the problem is labour shortage I cannot see how the industry is going to turn that around quickly, unless the pay rates are increased to attract workers back.

[otolith]

I remember the airline overbooking problem being an example of the practical application of the Poisson distribution in A level stats 30-odd years ago.

https://dev.to/xsabzal/poisson-probabilities-2efb

[Louis Balfour]

Thankyou4calling said:

I’m Group CEO of an African land and property company.

My salary is 600,000 a month ( 7.2 million a year)



Kenyan shillings.

£4k per month? We spend more on Nespresso capsules at our Accrington branch.

[Countdown]

GT03ROB said:

Muzzer79 said:

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…..

My wife dated one of them who is CEO at one of the companies in the middle of the current debacles for about 10years many moons ago. She still talks to him occasionally. Her view was his rare talent was to be an arrogant, self centred, none too bright, South African who the spitting Image song could have been written about (yes she did dump him eventually)! I need to remind her he’s in the middle of the current mess!

Arrogance (aka self-belief) isn't uncommon in CEOs (and senior managers). Operating via a culture of fear and intimidation can often get good short-term results

[roger.mellie]

otolith said:

Sounds painfully familiar, though the people who earn more than me are tech not sales.

I was the only one working today.

Definitely know what you mean on tech roles getting expensive.

Thankfully I wasn't working today although my phone is always available. We've a 247 support team so it's only there as an escalation point and I'm happy to say it has almost never went off as our support team are good. But there's always that bit in the back of your head knowing it could.

[Muzzer79]

I Know Nothing said:

blueg33 said:

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.

So why does the competitive market not work lower down?

Went KFC the other day which was closed, why no staff. Worked for a company not so long ago that needed 36 HGV (employed 250) drivers, arranged ten interviews, three turned up. Also needed a couple of cleaners, ran an ad, no one answered.

The answer is to pay more, but they won't!

Edited by I Know Nothing on Thursday 2nd June 16:38

A company can survive with a reduced workforce for a reasonable period of time. This gives them time to ride situations out, see if things are long term, look at alternative ideas.

However it cannot, and this will be an unpopular view, survive for long without a CEO, or equivalent person ultimately in charge.

To use a comparison - a ship can sail without some of its sailors. But it wouldn’t last long without a captain.

[turbobloke]

It not only depends on the skill being in short supply, but the skill level.

A temporary shortage for a reason unrelated to the skill level doesn't work that way because it's temporary and everyone knows that (if not the timescale relating to it).

[otolith]

roger.mellie said:

Definitely know what you mean on tech roles getting expensive.

Thankfully I wasn't working today although my phone is always available. We've a 247 support team so it's only there as an escalation point and I'm happy to say it has almost never went off as our support team are good. But there's always that bit in the back of your head knowing it could.

The first CTO I worked for in the industry told me that you had to be comfortable in IT with the talent earning more than you. Ironically, our highest earner (now a contractor) was one of my peers back then. But I also get equity, so swings and roundabouts.

The bottom line is that the buck stops with me, and if something has to be done and nobody else can do it, I do it. No matter when. I don’t have “working hours”, I have “responsibility”.

Funny, I wrote some code the other week. We needed to write a stubbed API for a bit of outsourced work, and nobody else had time to do it. Was the most I’ve enjoyed work in years.

[I Know Nothing]

Muzzer79 said:

But it wouldn’t last long without a captain.

Why not?

[Skeptisk]

Muzzer79 said:

I Know Nothing said:

blueg33 said:

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.

So why does the competitive market not work lower down?

Went KFC the other day which was closed, why no staff. Worked for a company not so long ago that needed 36 HGV (employed 250) drivers, arranged ten interviews, three turned up. Also needed a couple of cleaners, ran an ad, no one answered.

The answer is to pay more, but they won't!

Edited by I Know Nothing on Thursday 2nd June 16:38

A company can survive with a reduced workforce for a reasonable period of time. This gives them time to ride situations out, see if things are long term, look at alternative ideas.

However it cannot, and this will be an unpopular view, survive for long without a CEO, or equivalent person ultimately in charge.

To use a comparison - a ship can sail without some of its sailors. But it wouldn’t last long without a captain.

I suspect it is the exact opposite of what you have written. CEOs of large companies are responsible for overall strategy but the day to day work, including operational strategy, is at lower levels of management and most companies would survive fine without a CEO for quite some time. Many might survive better without a CEO as many CEOs almost feel obliged to come up with an implement some grand plan to justify their existence eg acquisitions, business reorganisations, IPOs etc.

Many CEOs are on bonus plans and so short term improvement in profit, even if detrimental to the long term success of the company, are preferred to plans that give better but deferred benefits.

The problem with equating CEOs with footballers and actors is that it is much more difficult to judge the performance of CEOs. Yes you can look at profits and share prices but even without a CEO those will vary based on many factors outside the control of the CEO eg competition, change in technology and markets, economic backdrop, currency, interest rates etc.

[67Dino]

Skeptisk said:

I Know Nothing said:

blueg33 said:

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.

….
To use a comparison - a ship can sail without some of its sailors. But it wouldn’t last long without a captain.

….
The problem with equating CEOs with footballers and actors is that it is much more difficult to judge the performance of CEOs. Yes you can look at profits and share prices but even without a CEO those will vary based on many factors outside the control of the CEO eg competition, change in technology and markets, economic backdrop, currency, interest rates etc.

If we are looking for an analogy, the CEOs role might be best compared to a Football Manager’s. There are also a lot of variables there that are outside their direct control - the strength of other teams, injuries, red cards, transfer decisions, refereeing errors, etc. But the point is that a good football manager can generally get better results from being dealt the same cards than a poor one.

[mcdjl]

67Dino said:

Skeptisk said:

I Know Nothing said:

blueg33 said:

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.

….
To use a comparison - a ship can sail without some of its sailors. But it wouldn’t last long without a captain.

….
The problem with equating CEOs with footballers and actors is that it is much more difficult to judge the performance of CEOs. Yes you can look at profits and share prices but even without a CEO those will vary based on many factors outside the control of the CEO eg competition, change in technology and markets, economic backdrop, currency, interest rates etc.

If we are looking for an analogy, the CEOs role might be best compared to a Football Manager’s. There are also a lot of variables there that are outside their direct control - the strength of other teams, injuries, red cards, transfer decisions, refereeing errors, etc. But the point is that a good football manager can generally get better results from being dealt the same cards than a poor one.

I'd say the opposite. A football team will miss the manager eventually. They'll miss the goalie much quicker.