The necessary skills are not rare, but the roles are rare so people start to think the skills are rare. I get a lot of grief for this opinion but I think most HN'ers could do the job of "CEO of whatever company they currently work for". It's not rocket science. We have this mythology around CEOs that they are such outlier smart, special, hardworking people, but really it's just that the top of the pyramids contain few people.

Shadow the CEO of a well-run large company around for a couple of weeks.

I wouldn't want that job, and I'm not sure I could do it.

Always being on-call, and having to constantly context switch and synthesize questionably-accurate material from reports, to make important decisions.

(And that's not even broaching the political tasks... which are required, because it's the only way to become and remain CEO)

Definitely wanting the job is separate from can do the job, although to be honest, I would be happy to get paid $6+ million for the job "Fail to turn around Mozilla". Heck, I'd be willing to do it for 10% of that compensation.

That's glib.

No one is hired to fail, and no one tries to fail.

They're hired to try and succeed, and sometimes it doesn't go that way.

It is not glib. Here is how I would put it.

> I wouldn't want that job. However, with the right team I AM sure I could do it.

Remember as a tech lead, if you are heroically writing a lot of code burning the midnight oil, banging out tickets and completing sprints by yourself, you are failing. As a CEO, the more you are doing the more you are failing. This is probably why it is so hard for people like us to he leaders. It is very difficult to delegate and not meddle with things. It is easy to say let go but very hard to actually do so.

Remember that even Steve Jobs delegated all operations and supply chain stuff to tim cook. And that's Steve Jobs! We are not Steve Jobs.

There is no reason why my manager should make more money than me.

> I wouldn't want that job, and I'm not sure I could do it.

There are many jobs that I wouldn't want and that are not paid 6M a year. There are some things that I can do that not everybody can do, and still I am not paid 6M.

You can try reverting it: a CEO earning 6M a year could not necessarily be a firefighter. Yet firefighters are not paid 6M a year. And they actually risk their life.

There's ability, demand, and impact.

IMHO, the stronger argument against CEO compensation is that the delta (in company performance) between a great CEO and a midling CEO isn't equal to their compensation.

If a firefighter sucks at their job... someone dies. But (unfortunately, if we're being honest) that's worth less than +/-1% of large company performance.

(Personally, I think public safety, medical non-doctors, and teachers should all be paid a lot better)

> And lots of people do really hard jobs for much much much less money.

I would consider most min wage jobs harder than what i (computer programmer) do. Compensation is often inversely correlated with how shitty the job is.

Hard as in "undesirable" isn't the same as in "the skills to do it are rare", though.

> don't see why it needs particularly rare skills

I don’t either! But apparently they’re rare. One pays dearly when trying to go cheap, or broaden the pool in seemingly innocuous ways, in executive recruiting.

> lots of people do really hard jobs

Fortitude is necessary, but by itself insufficient.

> I don’t either! But apparently they’re rare. One pays dearly when trying to go cheap, or broaden the pool in seemingly innocuous ways, in executive recruiting.

Do we have good evidence for that, or is it just what the people that hire CEOs tend to think?

When I think of disastrous CEOs that I've managed to hear about, they weren't cheap. They got paid huge amounts to cause their disasters.

There is the problem. There is evidence a great CEO can make a difference. And if a great CEO wants millions they are worth it. However nobody knows how to tell a great CEO from bad.

That sounds like the old advertising idiom, “Half of all advertising works, but you will never be certain which half,” or something similar anyway. I think there is a very distinct “lightning in a bottle” component to great and/or successful companies. Combinations of effective teams, aligned motivations, good timing, a leader who can identify and leverage all of those elements to great effect, and some X factors that are simply unknowable. That may be just a slightly more nuanced way of saying they’re lucky, but also good fortune in externally changing scenarios is certainly one of those unknown factors. I think the ability to recognize, organize, and effectively leverage all of the elements such that a company is well-positioned if/when the external factors line up in their favor is what defines a great CEO. I think that ability is akin to naturally talented musicians. Most people can, with enough time and effort, learn to play a guitar very well. They still won’t be Jimi Hendrix. The downside is, you can’t force it or fake it (at least not for very long). I think of parallels with the difference between the British and American versions of the TV show “Top Gear” that was being produced in the mid ‘00s. The original British show was the lightning in a bottle, and became one of the most successful TV series on the planet. The lifeless copy they attempted in the US followed the recipe meticulously, and was cringeworthy.

(Edit: Missed the word “never” up top)

> "I think there is a very distinct “lightning in a bottle” component to great and/or successful companies."

Watching The Grand Tour[1] season 1 it feels stilted, awkward, like they are reciting their lines for some forced humor while Amazon showers cash and flashy cars all around trying too hard. If it was like this with three unknown people I wouldn't bother - I'm only watching on the hope that the lightning in a bottle sparks up again as they settle in, because the highs of Top Gear were good - friends messing about for a laugh, daring bold ideas, beautiful filming and settings.

e.g. scaling the Guallatiri volcano https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOcJOn0nxnU

Crossing salt flats in Botswana: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OETj9aTYO2Q

Driving to the North Pole: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNkvASxfEWQ

Driving the Bolivian Death Road: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daQcxVqQJsI

Building their own amphibious cars and crossing the English Channel in them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTVPPTV-bQM

Trying to run out of fuel before arriving at the Chernobyl exclusion zone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YtVV1VJ4f8

Getting lost trying to leave a traditional Italian city: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_eLViH7_YI

Budget Italian Supercars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuCff8nCxBU

[1] When they stopped Top Gear, Amazon snapped up Clarkson Hammond and May to make a Top Gear knockoff for Amazon Prime, that's The Grand Tour.

> Do we have good evidence for that, or is it just what the people that hire CEOs tend to think?

I think so, and it’s largely in the attrition of start-ups due to executive leadership breaking down. Start-up founders are already a rarefied group; that so many break down or flip out or can’t handle all the balls in the air is telling. (There is plenty of academia on the topic. It doesn’t support massive paydays. But certainly single-digit millions, i.e. life-changing money for someone who may already be rich.)

> got paid huge amounts to cause their disasters

Look at the state of the company they took over. Golden parachutes are often required to woo top talent to a trash pile because top talent knows the world is stochastic.

> Look at the state of the company they took over.

Yes, I'm specifically thinking of companies that were doing fine when they took over.

Why would those skills not be rare? How many people do you know that can do all that? I know vanishingly few and I suspect most do too.