Anyone can run a company when times are flush and people want your product...

[WCGreen]

Well, except for Bush, but that's another story.

The real test of leadership for a CEO is how well they do when times turn south.

These so-called masters of the universe, these giants of Wall Street all, everyone of them, tanked when times got tough.

What does this tell us about the American business model?

But better still, what does this say about the American MBA programs?

Perhaps leadership and the entrepreneurial instinct is something that can't be taught in a class room. Maybe it's like athletic skills, you either have the stomach for it or you don't.

What really bothers me is the way the financial press fawns all over these CEO's like they are rock stars. But really they are just, for the most part, connected people who got really lucky.

[undeterred]

1. What bothers me is that shareholders don't object more

to these exorbitant salaries and the golden parachutes that have always been given out to CEOS and their ilk. These things are typically built into the signing contracts that these people get when they sign on and have nothing to do with their performance- so they have no incentive to perform well. They can leave a company in shambles and go on to another one with no penalty at all.

[jpgray]

2. The controlling shareholders are generally beneficiaries of that system--past, present or future

But more than this, I've read it is extremely difficult to organize shareholder clout for firing a CEO. CEOs generally have the advantage insofar as the political aspect of the endeavor. Any expert feel free to contradict me, as this is only based on my reading.

[undeterred]

3. I think you're right- most shareholders do not

attend meetings or own enough stock to really feel like a participant. I worked in IT for a company that was trying to change the structure using the principle of "Economic Value Added". Part of it involves tying all management and executive salaries to very specific performance metrics. I didn't completely understand it but I thought it sounded a lot better than the "cronyism" which usually determines these kinds of things.

Its just an option and there is a short list of companies which have converted to it- but its supposed to be a selling point for shareholders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_value_added

[notheyrejustwrong]

4. I've been saying that for years

After decades of listening to these "pro-business" "pro-capitalism" d*ckheads
go on and on about how great the American capitalist system is, my only question is
"Then why do you SUCK so BAD at it?"

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. It really speaks to me about the non-quality of our education...

When Yale gives * an MBA, then you have to wonder...

And also, the stockholders generally don't pay much attention to their golden boys...

There has been some movement towards controlling what these greedy CEO's make...

But reform is slow to come.

K&R