Nokia and RIM got clocked by the iPhone. I don’t care who their CEO could have been, these companies were on the downward trend and headed for tough times.
> these companies were on the downward trend and headed for tough times.
Exactly why you need a good CEO at the top to understand that the landscape has changed with a new competitor but Nokia and RIM failed to adapt.
What about CEOs like Jack Welch, who everyone lauded as a paragon of management? He was handsomely paid but his decisions crippled the company years later because of bad foresight? I think the main issue ITT is that it’s very hard to measure and distinguish a good CEO from a bad one, yet they are almost all paid as if they are great leaders.
> yet they are almost all paid as if they are great leaders.
The board of directors are the ones who measure CEO performance and set compensation but most of the times they just rubber stamp whatever the CEO does.
One of the criticisms is that the boards are incestuous. Another issue may be that stock options are much more common now. I know the argument is this should align the CEOs interest with the shareholders but the counterpoint is it incentivizes a short term outlook.
Except if the CEO screws up the company goes bankrupt and people lose their jobs. Look at Nokia and RIM.