Hacker News Reader

Comment by dclowd9901 | Hacker News Reader

Uh huh, and after those 20 people dropped out, I'd be willing to bet there would be another 200 right behind them ready to pick up the reins.

CEO is a position anyone can equally be successful or terrible at. So why do we insist putting the absolute most importance into it?

View on HN

Why don't you start an activist private equity firm / hedge fund, it seems you should be able to make massive returns by exploiting this inefficiency in the market.

I'm not sure how knowing that there are qualified CEO candidates who would accept such a contract leads to a way to exploit it. Can you elaborate?

Well it seems as if he is saying he can save tons of money for the company by hiring much cheaper candidates for CEO, and by extension of his logic I presume for the entire C-suite.

But the savings only apply if the money can actually be clawed back, so massive returns shouldn't be expected. However, it could lead to reduced risk by damping the loss caused by the CEO's malfeasance.

>anyone can equally be successful or terrible at

>anyone

Anyone, really?

Not sure, but we can resolve this by an experiment. Someone please make me a CEO :). I'll do my best, I promise.

I truly believe so, yes. I think CEO is an optics and politics position, and if you have half a brain for strategy and people hiring, you're going to kill it.

Most people aren't good leaders.

Most CEOs aren't good leaders.

What makes you say that? What is your definition of a "good" leader? If a CEO isn't a "good" leader by your measure but there are no better candidates within a given organization, then where does that leave us?

It's easy to shit on what you have no experience in.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com