Well, there was some recently published research that claimed to find that most of the effect attributed to CEO performance actually can be explained by random fluctuations. Make of that what you will.

Well, there was some recently published research that claimed X actually can be explained by Y.

X and Y are arbitrary

I assume you're being down voted for being new, but I read your comment as a more verbose "citation needed"

The paper: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.2192

The PR version: http://today.tamu.edu/2015/10/15/ceo-effect-on-firm-performa...

It's not: 'citation needed' it's rather: 'research is unreliable and, one paper shows x, the next paper shows not-x'

So what, just ignore all research and go with your gut feeling?

When talking about social science you might as well

I would take one study with a grain of salt too. Even if the conclusions are correct in the setting of the study (and since most research findings are false, they probably aren't), it doesn't mean that you can extrapolate to every other setting, particularly the specific case of being the CEO of IBM. Hence "Make of that what you will."

But there could be an element of truth to it, which might warrant further research. If CEOs really do have a much more limited influence than they are given credit (or blame) for, then incentives perhaps ought to be adjusted, not just in the interest of fairness but also in the interest of finding better ways to actually improve performance.

How do companies perform with no CEO?

Regardless of the firm's performance, it's a difficult role to fill -- especially for a large, multi national conglomerate.

Or "How did companies perform when absolute and relative CEO pay was lower in general"?

If I'm not mistaken, a public corporation must have a CEO by law?

Why would you attribute an increase in sales or profits to the leader?

Just because Pharaoh decides to build a pyramid, doesn't mean it will happen, however hard they think it, without an army of people doing the actual work.

Also, after the fact, sure, you got a pyramid, but what might have happened if those people were doing something else? It is easy (and in leaders' interests) to take credit for non-negative changes, but it seems difficult to determine if there is any relationship between these changes and the actions of the leader (rather than some other effect), let alone establishing causality.

note: apologies for off-topic rant

One thing's for sure. Drops in sales aren't being attributed to Ms. Rometty. Massive, prolonged drops. Worse than for her predecessor.

September 2012 IBM stock 205.5 September 2013 IBM stock 192.75 September 2014 IBM stock 190 September 2015 IBM stock 145 March 2015 IBM stock 140

If the CEO pay logic even remotely applied this woman would never be employed by anyone again. I'd rather hire a pyromaniac that did 100 million dollar in fire damage to his last employer : it'd be far, far cheaper.

Since she led IBM the stock has lost 11% of it's value every year, but it's not an average : the loss has accelerated over time. For her fifth year she's on track to have IBM stock lose 37% of it's value (trendline Sep 2015 to today, then see where that trendline is on Sep 2016. Where will it be ? 92 dollars). In absolute value, IBM shareholders have lost 62.4 billion dollars, about 1/3 of the total market cap.

If you're right, and the CEO is responsible for this ... Just wondering: I'm not the CEO. Suppose I do something that loses my company 46% of it's total stock price, damage sufficient assets to cause 60 billion dollars in damage. What will happen to me ? 16 million dollars extra pay ? Or something else ...

I'm not sure if you meant to reply to my comment - yours sounds much more relevant to the topic at hand.

As for the content of what you've said, if it's true, then it's quite terrifying! But it hardly seems unusual [0].

[0] http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/04/bp-chief-exe...

It was certainly meant to be a reply to "why would you attribute an increase to the leader" and meant mostly to amplify the point.

I haven't even said the worst of my analysis. If I make an NPV calculation assuming the 5-year average interest rates will be 1%, IBM is currently far overvalued, essentially 100%, mostly because of too much debt compared to assets. In a firesale, IBM wouldn't fetch half it's market cap.

You can tell by the short interest in IBM that I'm not the only one who thinks so.

In fact, that's the only real quality I would ascribe to Ms. Rometty : investors in IBM should be panicking, and they're not. Since she's the main point of contact between the board and the company, she probably should get some credit for that. But in a way it's the worst kind of compliment : she has been able to push something that's either a lie or mindless optimism on a lot of investors.

Actually the pyramids were built exactly because of the pharoahs. Try building one now. You can't. Because there is no divine inspiration demanding the people do it.

After re-reading, I can see that I didn't clearly express my point of view. The first line should have said this:

"Why would you attribute an increase in sales or profits solely to the leader?"

If you meant something similar, then fine, but if not, then do you really believe that the pharaohs would have been able to build their pyramids without their work force? As for whether we could build one now, I think you might say that we just have different gods [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Khalifa

Recent consensus among Egyptologists is that the Pyramids were constructed with paid labor rather than the stereotype of slave labor.

This is assuming those increased sales and profits are disproportionately attributable solely to the executive. In reality it is the army of sales reps and engineers which do the vast majority of this.

It's a lot when you're one of those laid off engineers with 30+ years of experience. It's an outrageous salary in general.

Perhaps he kept them from shrinking faster?

Not to nit-pick but the CEO of IBM is a woman.

Noted.