Hacker News Reader

Comment by neom | Hacker News Reader

Because if you don't like my plan you can go find a new CEO. And finding a new CEO is harder than it looks, especially in big business. CEOs should have a lot of leverage with their board, if they don't, they're cooked anyway. I have said to the external shareholders many times that their opinion of putting the business first and my opinion of putting the business first may differ because, unlike the investors, i'm responsible for the internal shareholders as well, and need to balance their views and opinions.

View on HN

> finding a new CEO is harder than it looks

I support your side of the argument, but why is it the case that finding a CEO is hard? It seems a bit like becoming president: there aren't many people in the pool who have matching previous experience anyway, and it's not even clear if "similar" experience even applies (Does one company resemble the other, even in the same industry? Different stages of growth, corporate structure, business model, region of operation etc), and much of the job seems to be adapting to new conditions. It seems more about the CEO's reputation and network, is that really just it? You pay for the CEO's access to the Old Boy's Club? Wouldn't the company be better served by spreading the role across multiple people, to avoid the stigma of changing CEOs?

Hey thanks for the reply, these are excellent questions. It's hard because usually the person you want is either happily employed because they are good at their job, or retired because they were good at their job. I've been a part of 3 CEO searches for big-ish startups and it wasn't fun. There is also often a fundamental reality difference between the board, the shareholders, the employees and the world. Getting that part out of the way can sometimes in and of itself take 2-4 months depending on the company. Once you've done that, figuring out what the "type" of CEO you need can take some time, do they need public market experience, do they need a network, do they need to be technical, etc. Then you build the list, and then the job of convincing someone to take the job is often equally difficult. Re: spreading the roll across multiple people. This is what a really excellent CEO does anyway, in fact if I don't see this being done it's a massive red flag. In a great company, the CEO only has two jobs: dealing with real emergencies and being accountable to the shareholders. I think one person being held to account is extremely beneficial though, and I don't think it would be a good idea to switch it to committee, I actually think of all the things capitalism gets right, corporate structure is for the most part quite well thought out and works.

Hey! Thanks for taking my semi-snarky reply at face value. I appreciated your kind response, and learned a few things. I'll pass on your hello to Glaeser if I ever run into him :-)

>It seems a bit like becoming president

I think this is why it is hard. Look at the people who ran for president in 2016. A lot of people want to be president, but most voters see, among a large pool, at most one person they think would fit the bill (and I think in the last election, a lot of people thought no one did). It's really hard to make a choice in such a situation. In the case of presidential elections, it's simply a matter of procedure that one person has to be selected on a specific day. Looking for a CEO? I'm sure the temptation to keep shopping when none of the candidates look ideal is very appealing.

(ps I see you're at Kennedy, if you happened to know ed glaeser tell him I say hi!)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com