Silent_Buddha
Legend
Keep in mind, as a CEO you are running a business that multiple other businesses would be quite happy to make you go out of business.
As such, you don't want a "nice" CEO. You want a CEO that is cutthroat at business and is good at negotiating a better deal than the "other" guy.
Businesses run by "nice" CEOs are businesses on a path to bankruptcy.
BTW - nice in this case isn't about their personality in their personal life, but about the decisions they make in business. A good CEO has to be ruthless to an extent. Gone are the days when, in general, a CEO can be extremely generous to their employees and still be a top tier business. The ease of personnel movement between jobs and corporations means that long term investment in an employee likely just means you just made a great employee for another company when another company poaches them. In other words, there's always another company that's willing to pay more to lure a top employee away. Often badly run ones who may soon go bankrupt due to unwise spending but that's small consolation when you lose an employee into which you've invested huge sums of money.
It is interesting to see that pre and post easy movement between jobs led to: [1] better compensation for top performers (those attractive to competitors) and [2] worse compensation for your average worker (those that don't attract interest from competitors). Now, that's obviously a generalization, there are still some companies that can afford to compensate workers well from top to bottom, but those are usually ones that hold a dominant near unassailable position in their particular market. Corporations are incentivised to pay and compensate those workers that might be poached more while reducing pay and compensations for workers who are unlikely to get poached.
Regards,
SB
As such, you don't want a "nice" CEO. You want a CEO that is cutthroat at business and is good at negotiating a better deal than the "other" guy.
Businesses run by "nice" CEOs are businesses on a path to bankruptcy.
BTW - nice in this case isn't about their personality in their personal life, but about the decisions they make in business. A good CEO has to be ruthless to an extent. Gone are the days when, in general, a CEO can be extremely generous to their employees and still be a top tier business. The ease of personnel movement between jobs and corporations means that long term investment in an employee likely just means you just made a great employee for another company when another company poaches them. In other words, there's always another company that's willing to pay more to lure a top employee away. Often badly run ones who may soon go bankrupt due to unwise spending but that's small consolation when you lose an employee into which you've invested huge sums of money.
It is interesting to see that pre and post easy movement between jobs led to: [1] better compensation for top performers (those attractive to competitors) and [2] worse compensation for your average worker (those that don't attract interest from competitors). Now, that's obviously a generalization, there are still some companies that can afford to compensate workers well from top to bottom, but those are usually ones that hold a dominant near unassailable position in their particular market. Corporations are incentivised to pay and compensate those workers that might be poached more while reducing pay and compensations for workers who are unlikely to get poached.
Regards,
SB
