As I read this article about bad CEOs I noted a repeating theme of the CEO being let go "too late" to save the company.
I have no reason to doubt the CEO quality level assertion. What I don't understand is where were the boards of directors? If a CEO is driving a company off the rails, toward a cliff for years and years, one would hope the board-- even one hand picked by the CEO-- would step up and do something about it.
Where were these board members? Shouldn't they have acted sooner to save these companies? Did they implicitly endorse the behaviours and actions of the CEO by not providing boundaries or feedback on direction?
Of course, then you have the other end of the spectrum where activist investors who push their own short term perspective. This guy might be good for shareholder ROI but he probably terrible for users and employees. Dude, I get that you want an ROI but there are people behind those numbers in your ROI spreadsheets. If an activist investor like this elects a board that then shreds the company, I guess then it's the fault of the owners who elected the board in the first place, no?
No comments:
Post a Comment