What makes me mad is that CEO pay is usually orders of magnitude greater than the people actually doing the job. Yet, there is no examination of the CE's abilities - in fact they pride themselves on strategy, not the mundane operations. Usually 'strategy' and 'operational management' literature diverges, as well. What happens is that the operational managers tend to get a lot less pay, but actually know how things work - but because they are paid less, they are viewed as less important.
Many of the CEs get these prestige jobs by knowing the right sort of people - nothing else (nepotism anyone?). Furthermore, they make some of the most outrageous decisions that have no basis in pragmatic reality. But if you confront them (This idea is stupid and destructive to the organization) they claim that one is a stick-in-the-mud, resisting transformational change.
This has been the governance mantra since the late eighties: Transformation. However, the CEs are so fixated on 'making a change' that they often start weird vanity projects that absorb millions of dollars, and really are of no benefit to anyone. Honestly, the world would be a better place if one simply got rid of the entire 'upstairs'.
Very well put. CEO's are not in touch with reality and don't give a shit about the minutia. They will spend millions on the absolute worst projects and get praised for it and 100% of the time totally fail, yet they get a bonus for instituting it failed or not and never held accountable for anything.
Well yes and no. The problem with complaining about CEO pay, is that in 99% of cases 90% of their pay is in the form of stock options. Take musk for example. His actual salary is minimum wage, but his stock options are worth billions of dollars since Tesla is so valuable. Meaning his compensation is almost entirely non-cash.
Now of course this doesn't mean that they aren't actually getting that money, it's relatively easy to get an asset backed loan with ridiculously good terms on stock, especially if you're the CEO of said company since there's understood to be an incentive for you to make the stock go up at that point.
Likewise, not EVERY CEO is born from nepotism. Quite a few companies have a "bottom up" approach, for their Executives. I loathe giving them any form of credit, but Walmart is an example of this. The current CEO of Walmart, started out as a literal bagboy, and worked his way up the corporate ladder.
Overall, it's less about the CEO being paid exorbitant amounts for doing very little. It's that they have an agenda handed to them by their overlord's because they're compromised. Most of these people DO have at least a semblance of understanding about their companies. It's just that they have an agenda forced onto them.
Most people seem to misunderstand the C-Suite roles when it comes to stuff like this. Their job is to basically be overseers of the company and guide the general direction. It's basically impossible for a single person, or even a team of 10 people, to oversee every little aspect of a large organization. Can you imagine the CEO of GM overseeing every little aspect of vehicle production from the glass being tempered, to the nuts and bolts being machined, to the finance department, to the design and engineering department.
All of these different departments are highly specialized and have literally nothing to do with each other as far as skill sets go. Asking someone to have moderate knowledge in every single one of them is just unreasonable. Hence, why Operating Manager (Usually a VP) tend to be the ones to oversee the day to day, while the C-Suite act as overseers in order to make sure the corporate machine is well oiled and properly functioning, while being able to adapt to a changing environment.
It's basically impossible for a single person, or even a team of 10 people, to oversee every little aspect of a large organization. Can you imagine the CEO of GM overseeing every little aspect of vehicle production from the glass being tempered, to the nuts and bolts being machined, to the finance department, to the design and engineering department.
Yes I agree. This is why the Toyota records re: Deming-inspired bottom-up reporting systems; anonymized drop boxes for suggestions; five minute sessions at the beginning of workdays where everyone is encouraged to speak up etc. are so interesting to me. The culture had to be 'manually' democratized in Japan, because the population were literally coming out of a feudal system, where overlords, with the emperor at the top, were like Gods. It was the ultimate expression of the existence of rigid hierarchy. The little people at the bottom had no choice but to follow all orders, without input - and that had implications on safety, quality etc.
What was discovered was that the man-on-the-ground; or the bureaucrat-on-the-street; man-on-the-coalface; man-in-the-trench type person knows a few things. If they say that the machine will be better if the blade is set at such and such angle, then you give them the discretion to change it. As a CE, this means one cannot arbitrarily demand to interfere in daily operations, which gives birth to a whole genre of strategy literature.
What's also interesting, is the current effect of coming online. As businesses necessarily adopt cloud-based software and plug all their employees in, there is an incredible pancaking of that previous hierarchy. And in my opinion, CEs suddenly find themselves at a loss. Some will even display narcissism, as they thrash to remain relevant. Everything is automated - they might be able to suggest another app, or bot or something to be made, but the system is far bigger and way more flattened than they expected.
Moreover, each of what were previously minions, now have networks of contacts. And in this game, the more contacts you have that are actively engaged, the 'more important' you are considered in the pancake landscape. The CE is just another one of those participants. Suddenly they are playing a social media game. I guess Musk, and Trump are prime examples of such CEs.
Need tariffs ---- bring more jobs back to US.
What makes me mad is that CEO pay is usually orders of magnitude greater than the people actually doing the job. Yet, there is no examination of the CE's abilities - in fact they pride themselves on strategy, not the mundane operations. Usually 'strategy' and 'operational management' literature diverges, as well. What happens is that the operational managers tend to get a lot less pay, but actually know how things work - but because they are paid less, they are viewed as less important.
Many of the CEs get these prestige jobs by knowing the right sort of people - nothing else (nepotism anyone?). Furthermore, they make some of the most outrageous decisions that have no basis in pragmatic reality. But if you confront them (This idea is stupid and destructive to the organization) they claim that one is a stick-in-the-mud, resisting transformational change.
This has been the governance mantra since the late eighties: Transformation. However, the CEs are so fixated on 'making a change' that they often start weird vanity projects that absorb millions of dollars, and really are of no benefit to anyone. Honestly, the world would be a better place if one simply got rid of the entire 'upstairs'.
Very well put. CEO's are not in touch with reality and don't give a shit about the minutia. They will spend millions on the absolute worst projects and get praised for it and 100% of the time totally fail, yet they get a bonus for instituting it failed or not and never held accountable for anything.
Well yes and no. The problem with complaining about CEO pay, is that in 99% of cases 90% of their pay is in the form of stock options. Take musk for example. His actual salary is minimum wage, but his stock options are worth billions of dollars since Tesla is so valuable. Meaning his compensation is almost entirely non-cash.
Now of course this doesn't mean that they aren't actually getting that money, it's relatively easy to get an asset backed loan with ridiculously good terms on stock, especially if you're the CEO of said company since there's understood to be an incentive for you to make the stock go up at that point.
Likewise, not EVERY CEO is born from nepotism. Quite a few companies have a "bottom up" approach, for their Executives. I loathe giving them any form of credit, but Walmart is an example of this. The current CEO of Walmart, started out as a literal bagboy, and worked his way up the corporate ladder.
Overall, it's less about the CEO being paid exorbitant amounts for doing very little. It's that they have an agenda handed to them by their overlord's because they're compromised. Most of these people DO have at least a semblance of understanding about their companies. It's just that they have an agenda forced onto them.
Most people seem to misunderstand the C-Suite roles when it comes to stuff like this. Their job is to basically be overseers of the company and guide the general direction. It's basically impossible for a single person, or even a team of 10 people, to oversee every little aspect of a large organization. Can you imagine the CEO of GM overseeing every little aspect of vehicle production from the glass being tempered, to the nuts and bolts being machined, to the finance department, to the design and engineering department.
All of these different departments are highly specialized and have literally nothing to do with each other as far as skill sets go. Asking someone to have moderate knowledge in every single one of them is just unreasonable. Hence, why Operating Manager (Usually a VP) tend to be the ones to oversee the day to day, while the C-Suite act as overseers in order to make sure the corporate machine is well oiled and properly functioning, while being able to adapt to a changing environment.
Yes I agree. This is why the Toyota records re: Deming-inspired bottom-up reporting systems; anonymized drop boxes for suggestions; five minute sessions at the beginning of workdays where everyone is encouraged to speak up etc. are so interesting to me. The culture had to be 'manually' democratized in Japan, because the population were literally coming out of a feudal system, where overlords, with the emperor at the top, were like Gods. It was the ultimate expression of the existence of rigid hierarchy. The little people at the bottom had no choice but to follow all orders, without input - and that had implications on safety, quality etc.
What was discovered was that the man-on-the-ground; or the bureaucrat-on-the-street; man-on-the-coalface; man-in-the-trench type person knows a few things. If they say that the machine will be better if the blade is set at such and such angle, then you give them the discretion to change it. As a CE, this means one cannot arbitrarily demand to interfere in daily operations, which gives birth to a whole genre of strategy literature.
What's also interesting, is the current effect of coming online. As businesses necessarily adopt cloud-based software and plug all their employees in, there is an incredible pancaking of that previous hierarchy. And in my opinion, CEs suddenly find themselves at a loss. Some will even display narcissism, as they thrash to remain relevant. Everything is automated - they might be able to suggest another app, or bot or something to be made, but the system is far bigger and way more flattened than they expected.
Moreover, each of what were previously minions, now have networks of contacts. And in this game, the more contacts you have that are actively engaged, the 'more important' you are considered in the pancake landscape. The CE is just another one of those participants. Suddenly they are playing a social media game. I guess Musk, and Trump are prime examples of such CEs.