mrstickball said:
The reality is that their other candidate - internally-driven Ann Livermore has had a much better impact at the company, it seems. |
It seems that a CEO is more likely to damage a company than do it good. I would say there are exceptions like Jobs, but then Jobs was an original founder and knew the culture. One would think that eventually corporations are going to work to reevaluate how they to compensation. I do see one thing is that a degree of compensation will come from offering shares of the company, which would seem to cause an executive to get vested in the company, but it also has led to a motivation of executives to try to maximize stock prices short-term. In tough times, companies need to think in terms of building up the right talent internally and offering path of succession. But now, it isn't that. It is individuals in a few years, they do their damage, and will sometimes leave before the damage manifests itself. Along the way, it is maximize stock prices.








