New study/experiment. Uber conservatives now get a diagnosis?

[lookout123]

shut up, everyone knows that 85% of all problems are directly traceable to the top.

[DanaC]

Maybe it doesn't happen so much over there. There's a tendency in very large, very powerful companies/quangos over here, that if the guy at the top fucks up, he leaves with a very handsome bank balance.

[DanaC]

Do you feel the same way about doctors?

Yes.

If a doctor makes a very bad error of judgment he can be reported to the medical association and if necessary struck off to prevent a repeat of a potentially deadly mistake. It's not easy to get a doctor struck off, they have to have made errors of judgement serious enough to suggest that they may endanger their patients if they continue to practise.

[Flint]

And this enormous weight of responsibility, surely it places a strain on this person, yes? Loss of time with the family, constant stress leading to health issues, and the knowledge that if any one part of a massive machine slips out of balance, the axe hanging over your head will drop, even if it wasn't even remotely your fault. But that's the job, to be omniscient, and to bear the responsibility for the whole organization (not just one project, one department, or one facility).

How much would you expect to be paid for that job? Would you even accept the job if it was offered to you? Could you do the job if you took it?

I used to know this guy who would yell at athletes on television, and claim that he could do a better job, if they paid him that much.

[Shawnee123]

Or, they pass the buck and blame it on underlings.

You're right, a lot of people wouldn't want the job of CEO; those who are CEOs are not always there because they're so damn good at it, but rather they like (live for) the stress, the politics, the hours, the power, and don't mind a little poopin' on the underlings. Or having the underlings throw poo at you (behind your back of course.)

[theotherguy]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Or, they pass the buck and blame it on underlings.

You're right, a lot of people wouldn't want the job of CEO; those who are CEOs are not always there because they're so damn good at it, but rather they like (live for) the stress, the politics, the hours, the power, and don't mind a little poopin' on the underlings. Or having the underlings throw poo at you (behind your back of course.)

A good CEO does not blame others for mistakes he/she makes, but does hold them responsible for their actions as the relate to the duties assigned to him/her.

I report directly to the CEO at my company and he has always been fair. Actually, he is a pretty good mentor. He takes time to discuss with me why he makes some decisions he makes and how it will affect employees and the bottom line. I know that not all CEOs are like him, but I feel certain he is not in the minority.

[tw]

Originally Posted by theotherguy

A good CEO does not blame others for mistakes he/she makes, but does hold them responsible for their actions as the relate to the duties assigned to him/her.

And now confront the term 'perspective'. A relation between you and the CEO, you are responsible for your responsibilities. A good CEO does little work. He defines a strategic objective and delegates the tasks - sometimes to you.

But to the rest of the world, that CEO is responsible for your screwups. After all, HE provided the necessary knowledge - ie the good mentor. He defined the strategic objective. His job is to make sure you have everything necessary so that you don't screw up. Why? Because his ass is on the line if you do screw up - and he cannot and must not be doing the work. Well that is what happens when a company is responsible and productive.

Notice the different perspectives of a same relationship between your and your boss.

The man who was responsible for everyone else - must provide the attitude and knowledge - must confirm that everyone has what is needed to perform the tasks - must define a strategic objective that can be accomplished (Deming's famous bead experiment); that top man is the CEO. So we once gave him 10 and 20 times more money for doing almost no work while providing direction - attitude and knowledge.

Having lost market share, diminishing stock price, and paid one of the highest salaries in the nation; what did Home Depot do to Nardelli? They gave him a $145million bonus. His starting salary was $123 in 2000. In those seven years, he did nothing to empower innovation; to improve the stores. But he did concentrate power in Atlanta. He lost significant market share to Lowes. The stock dropped from an average $60 per share to $32 per share. Company value dropped to half under Nardelli's rein. So what do we do? We give him a massive bonus? Well we (the stockholders) don't do that. We have no say.

Companies no longer have top management accountable to the owners. It has become a neat little club of Presidents also operating as Directors for other companies. A wink and a smile; and they run up each other's salaries. He destroyed half the value of Home Depot. So they gave him a $145million bonus. And some even here say that is good.

The boss is responsible for all while doing almost no work. The people who make that possible are the little people. Once that top man got 14 times more money than the average employee. The average employee made all that possible. All the boss had to do is make sure everyone knew their job. Now many top executives cannot even do that - and make 365 times more money?

The top man at GM could not even drive a car? Top men in the airlines had no grasp of what happened inside airliners or those support functions. Top executives at American steel companies never worked where the work gets done. Top executive at First Energy who created the NE blackout knew nothing about utilities, electricity, or company operations. In each case, they took record salaries and drove their companies down. Why are some of the highest top executive salaries in some of the poorest growth companies? Why do some here just know this is good? Even Greenspan is cautioning; this as one of the two greatest threats to the American economy.

[DanaC]

The situation tw describes there is similar to the way things work in many of the larger companies/organisations in the UK.

I have no objection to the head of a company earning significantly more than the people s/he employs. I completely agree that they have a huge weight of responsibility and if that responsibility is a genuine one it must weigh heavily indeed. My problem lies with the fact that in several well documented instances (and one wonders how many not so well documented instances exist), the people who should have been bearing that weight and who were being paid hundreds of times more than their employees because of it, were not held to be responsible. Instead they were rewarded for their failure.

In some of these cases, the knock on effect of their incompetence was job losses amongst the workforce. People who did their jobs competantly and were paid an average wage lost their jobs because of the incompetance of the person in charge; whilst the person who'd caused their job loss and compromised the health of the entire organisation were rewarded with record bonuses. Bonuses that made the lifetime earnings of their employees look like pocket money.

And this enormous weight of responsibility, surely it places a strain on this person, yes? Loss of time with the family, constant stress leading to health issues, and the knowledge that if any one part of a massive machine slips out of balance, the axe hanging over your head will drop, even if it wasn't even remotely your fault. But that's the job, to be omniscient, and to bear the responsibility for the whole organization (not just one project, one department, or one facility).

Okay the size of the responsibility is greater. But, the level or work and expertise required to fulfil that responsibility is not necessarily as unique within the company as their role may be.

My dad was a maintenance electrician in a mid-size bakery for twenty-odd years. He was the chief electrician so it was his responsibility to make sure everything kept running. The maintenance crew did most of their overhauls and upkeep at night so Dad was primarily a night-worker (which impacted on family life). If there was a major breakdown the cost implications to Mellings were severe. Everything is on a smaller scale than the large companies we've been talking about, but it takes a lot less to sink a smaller company.

Dad didn't bear the whole responsibility for the company, but he bore full responsibility for keeping the company's factory running. If you think that wasn't high stress, think again. The amount of times Dad had to jerry-rig or invent some wild solution to keep production going when a machine broke and the right part wsn't available.

The CEO of a large company is responsible for the whole thing. He has to be omniscient...except that he doesn't. He has to be wholly responsible, but I doubt the CEO actually looks at individual stationery orders, he has other people to look and filter the relevant information through to him.

Dad was only looking after one factory of machines, ovens, timers and conveyers. But he had to be aware of every screw. The potential consequences to his little world if he screwed up, or got very unlucky, were just as great as the consequences to the CEO's much bigger world if he screws up or gets unlucky: production problems, logistic and financial consequences, the potential for destabilising a business which is operating within tight margins and ultimately, if the mistake was big enough and particularly badly timed, a need for cost-cutting exercises leading to job losses.

My Dad never earned above £20k.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by theotherguy

I report directly to the CEO at my company and he has always been fair. Actually, he is a pretty good mentor. He takes time to discuss with me why he makes some decisions he makes and how it will affect employees and the bottom line. I know that not all CEOs are like him, but I feel certain he is not in the minority.

Originally Posted by DanaC

The CEO of a large company is responsible for the whole thing. He has to be omniscient...except that he doesn't. He has to be wholly responsible, but I doubt the CEO actually looks at individual stationery orders, he has other people to look and filter the relevant information through to him.

The CEO may be a great guy, but in most large companies/organizations, the majority of the employees have no contact with the CEO. In the layers of middle management, too often made up of idiots, the message from the top, as well as the information from the bottom, gets garbled.