C.E.O.'s Salaries
Discussion
crankedup5 said:
blueg33 said:
Muzzer79 said:
Talksteer said:
I Know Nothing said:
Muzzer79 said:
But it wouldn’t last long without a captain.
Why not? Ships that operate away from land are 24/7 enterprises with numerous qualified officers of the watch who are capable of handling the ship.
In a naval context the captain has an XO who is equally qualified to run the ship and may even be rank equal with the Captain. On larger ships it's likely that the XO has even captained smaller vessels.
How about the Teflon fiasco at Du Pont. Company fined but CEO not held accountable.
Skeptisk said:
Just look at Boeing. CEO in charge during cost cutting and corner cutting regarding safety that led to two planes crashing, 360 dead people and a trashing of Boeing’s reputation. Not held liable and asked to leave…with a $20 million pay off.
Losing your job….essentially being fired, would be seen by a lot of people as ‘being held accountable’As for the pay off, if I were to choose to fire you, I wouldn’t be able to do it out of process without a pay off. The same applies for a CEO, but the numbers are commensurate with the salary.
Muzzer79 said:
Exactly.
If there is no captain, one of the senior officers assumes the role of captain.
But there’s always a captain.
Same in business. Someone needs to have an ultimate say and responsibility.
If I fell under a bus the NEDs would temporarily assume responsibility until a replacement could be hired. Which might take a while in the current climate, because frankly hiring senior staff is a nightmare at the moment and I'm not surprised wages are high. Even hiring junior clerical staff seems to require paying a lot of money and frequently getting someone who turns out not to be as useful as you hoped. If there is no captain, one of the senior officers assumes the role of captain.
But there’s always a captain.
Same in business. Someone needs to have an ultimate say and responsibility.
98elise 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
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-war...
My son works in a supermarket. They are struggling to recruit, and retain staff. They recent upped wages across the board to deal with it.
If there is a shortage of labour, how else you you entice people to leave their current employer and work for you?
Drivers who got a pay increase for Christmas have had this withdrawn after Christmas with them being told it was an uplift not a pay increase.
Muzzer79 said:
Skeptisk said:
Just look at Boeing. CEO in charge during cost cutting and corner cutting regarding safety that led to two planes crashing, 360 dead people and a trashing of Boeing’s reputation. Not held liable and asked to leave…with a $20 million pay off.
Losing your job….essentially being fired, would be seen by a lot of people as ‘being held accountable’As for the pay off, if I were to choose to fire you, I wouldn’t be able to do it out of process without a pay off. The same applies for a CEO, but the numbers are commensurate with the salary.
67Dino said:
If being a CEO requires only limited skill and effort, and yet is fabulously well rewarded regardless of results, does make we wonder why everyone doesn’t do the job. Sounds marvellous to me.
A bit like saying anyone could be Queen/king because it only involves waving, making small talk and not saying anything controversial (although some of her Madge’s offspring can’t even manage that). Yes we could do the job but it isn’t being offered. Anyway, not sure people are arguing that CEOs are worthless and the job is easy. It is only being questioned whether their compensation is commensurate with the benefit they bring.
Skeptisk said:
67Dino said:
If being a CEO requires only limited skill and effort, and yet is fabulously well rewarded regardless of results, does make we wonder why everyone doesn’t do the job. Sounds marvellous to me.
A bit like saying anyone could be Queen/king because it only involves waving, making small talk and not saying anything controversial (although some of her Madge’s offspring can’t even manage that). Yes we could do the job but it isn’t being offered. Anyway, not sure people are arguing that CEOs are worthless and the job is easy. It is only being questioned whether their compensation is commensurate with the benefit they bring.
On your first point, in my experience, the CEO role is searched and selected for in pretty much the same way as other senior executive roles. There’s a mix of advertising and headhunting, you go through screening interviews and sometimes tests with recruitment/HR types, have meetings with Directors and the Chairman, and in the final stage present your proposed plan to a group including Board members.
If there’s a secret handshake or old school tie I haven’t come across it, although perhaps those were for the roles I didn’t get…
67Dino said:
Fair point, I was exaggerating.
On your first point, in my experience, the CEO role is searched and selected for in pretty much the same way as other senior executive roles. There’s a mix of advertising and headhunting, you go through screening interviews and sometimes tests with recruitment/HR types, have meetings with Directors and the Chairman, and in the final stage present your proposed plan to a group including Board members.
If there’s a secret handshake or old school tie I haven’t come across it, although perhaps those were for the roles I didn’t get…
Your experience of the process is the same as mine. First contact usually comes via headhunter on the basis of your reputation. I see no old school tie stuff, but maybe that’s because I went to s comprehensive in Coventry, not a public school in Berkshire. On your first point, in my experience, the CEO role is searched and selected for in pretty much the same way as other senior executive roles. There’s a mix of advertising and headhunting, you go through screening interviews and sometimes tests with recruitment/HR types, have meetings with Directors and the Chairman, and in the final stage present your proposed plan to a group including Board members.
If there’s a secret handshake or old school tie I haven’t come across it, although perhaps those were for the roles I didn’t get…
I declined a headhunter this week who wanted to put me up for a CEO role. Not enough money for the risk despite a 4 year exit plan and substantial equity, plus a part of my sector that holds no interest for me. (note, not a huge business either)
Edited by blueg33 on Saturday 4th June 11:09
67Dino said:
If being a CEO requires only limited skill and effort, and yet is fabulously well rewarded regardless of results, does make we wonder why everyone doesn’t do the job. Sounds marvellous to me.
I think that the point is that similar to many well paid jobs (particularly in finance) there are none aptitude based barriers to getting access to said jobs or the career path that would get you too them.As an example:
“I often say to people: ‘I started my career in investment banking structuring corporate debt and derivatives, armed with a degree in ancient history and a master’s in international relations that did not teach me how to do the job,”
“I effectively did an apprenticeship as I learned everything I knew about that job on the job.”
Euan Blair
So not academically gifted (according to himself), not in anyway trained for a role yet gets there role and free training to carry the role out.
It's not like Morgan Stanley are trawling the inner city estates looking for people with the cognitive talent, having a name that opens doors or friends and contacts in an industry is a massive advantage for getting into plenty of jobs.
Muzzer79 said:
blueg33 said:
Muzzer79 said:
Talksteer said:
I Know Nothing said:
Muzzer79 said:
But it wouldn’t last long without a captain.
Why not? Ships that operate away from land are 24/7 enterprises with numerous qualified officers of the watch who are capable of handling the ship.
In a naval context the captain has an XO who is equally qualified to run the ship and may even be rank equal with the Captain. On larger ships it's likely that the XO has even captained smaller vessels.
If there is no captain, one of the senior officers assumes the role of captain.
But there’s always a captain.
Same in business. Someone needs to have an ultimate say and responsibility.
Which goes back to my previous points,aside from CEOs who are owners and founders most CEOs are replaceable and have no different skillset than many of those a few tiers beneath them.
Incidentally owner and founder CEOs tend to massively out perform hired CEOs.
Some of that is survivorship bias, the terrible owners and founders don't get to run a public company.
Some of that is that is that as major shareholders they simply have a lot more power and trust.
Mainly it's that they actually understand their product and business that much better. Owners and founders can generally drive product development directly and can't be bulls
tted.Having a name has always been the easiest way for a lot of people to get jobs, it is what you do with it that counts, most will do nothing ad simply find clever ways to make money with the easy path they have been given, but a good CEO is clearly a difficult, very challenging job.
I have no idea about it as i do not wish to be that person in any way, I think you have to have certain attributes some people think they have but only the best do have.
But i still think even the fact that they have to paid off despite success or failure is ridiculous when their decision could have cost the company millions, and that is then exacerbated by having to pay them even more off.
I have no idea about it as i do not wish to be that person in any way, I think you have to have certain attributes some people think they have but only the best do have.
But i still think even the fact that they have to paid off despite success or failure is ridiculous when their decision could have cost the company millions, and that is then exacerbated by having to pay them even more off.
LukeBrown66 said:
Having a name has always been the easiest way for a lot of people to get jobs, it is what you do with it that counts, most will do nothing ad simply find clever ways to make money with the easy path they have been given, but a good CEO is clearly a difficult, very challenging job.
I have no idea about it as i do not wish to be that person in any way, I think you have to have certain attributes some people think they have but only the best do have.
But i still think even the fact that they have to paid off despite success or failure is ridiculous when their decision could have cost the company millions, and that is then exacerbated by having to pay them even more off.
They don’t have to be paid off for failure. That’s down to the deal they negotiated I have no idea about it as i do not wish to be that person in any way, I think you have to have certain attributes some people think they have but only the best do have.
But i still think even the fact that they have to paid off despite success or failure is ridiculous when their decision could have cost the company millions, and that is then exacerbated by having to pay them even more off.
Some years ago, I took on a failing subsidiary of our business. It was a big risk so I made sure that my package didn’t just dump me if it turned out to be unfixable. That was to balance the risk.
blueg33 said:
Louis Balfour said:
I've known CEOs promoted there above their level of competence. The misery they experienced being out of their depth, and the eventual humiliation, were not adequately compensated by the money they briefly earned.
That happens at all levels of management Louis Balfour said:
blueg33 said:
Louis Balfour said:
I've known CEOs promoted there above their level of competence. The misery they experienced being out of their depth, and the eventual humiliation, were not adequately compensated by the money they briefly earned.
That happens at all levels of management Mate of mine was CEO of a well known supermarket, he retired early this year, managed to slip out of the limelight quite quietly. Buts he ran the business well with no dramas.
blueg33 said:
Louis Balfour said:
blueg33 said:
Louis Balfour said:
I've known CEOs promoted there above their level of competence. The misery they experienced being out of their depth, and the eventual humiliation, were not adequately compensated by the money they briefly earned.
That happens at all levels of management Mate of mine was CEO of a well known supermarket, he retired early this year, managed to slip out of the limelight quite quietly. Buts he ran the business well with no dramas.
I know another chap who is CEO of a household name. Unusual appointment. I haven't seen him since he joined them, but will be surprised if he survives.
In a far more modest way, when I was working, I took some roles above my level of ability. I grew into some, not others. The money was never enough to compensate from being in the wrong job.
Louis Balfour said:
I knew a chap who took the helm of a failing high street retailer. He came from a multi-national. Financial message boards were awash with "how did ****** get that gig?" and when he inevitably failed it was "he was way out of his depth, should never have been there etc". He looked haunted and jumpy during his tenure. Last seen on a plane to far-off lands where he now works in an industry better suited to him.
I know another chap who is CEO of a household name. Unusual appointment. I haven't seen him since he joined them, but will be surprised if he survives.
In a far more modest way, when I was working, I took some roles above my level of ability. I grew into some, not others. The money was never enough to compensate from being in the wrong job.
Same with any job really. CEO just carries the ultimate responsibility I know another chap who is CEO of a household name. Unusual appointment. I haven't seen him since he joined them, but will be surprised if he survives.
In a far more modest way, when I was working, I took some roles above my level of ability. I grew into some, not others. The money was never enough to compensate from being in the wrong job.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff