Hypothetically, if all a programmer did was, once a quarter, come in in person to maintain some piece of software that created $300k of value per year for the company, is that a problem for you?
Unsolicited career advice: cultivating a reputation and a network within your industry, such that you're the one regularly receiving those calls, can be highly lucrative - look into it
I will ask: why is it your CEO doing this, not your sales team?
And if your CEO is doing only 4 meetings a year, why can’t they do more ?
If you have a billion dollars in revenue per client, how many potential clients can you have ?
Won’t they run out of work in a few years?
At that point what value does the CEO add ? Will they still be going on trips for meetings which will never result in billion dollar revenues ?
I get the spirit of your point. To use it further, to understand it, we should scrutinize even the CEO role.
Assuming im a shareholder, why should we ‘subsidize’ a useless CEO at any point ?
The CEO is also an employee in the end.
I'm sorry but this concept should be immediately clear, if not, you really shouldn't be discussing what a CEO should or shouldn't be doing with his time.
This additional information added narrows the options.
As stated, the CEO is simply a source of prestige, who satisfies the other party’s ego.
None of this, information changes my questions or makes them irrelevant.
If anything, it is clear that the CEO is completely fungible. They are only needed 4 times a year, to satisfy the ego of 4 potential revenue sources.
The core ‘work’ is done by the rest of the firm.
That means, of the 1 bn dollars in revenue that you ascribed to the CEO, they represent a very small part of the actual effort.
What shareholder value do they bring the rest of the year?
In essence - CEO positions are not immune to economic logic. They, like the firm, work for shareholders.
Based on the added data, it would seem that there is reason to take umbrage with CEO privileges - such as their ability to work remotely.
After all, if they are doing nothing the rest of the year, they can be paid less for it.
————
For me, communication is at its core, problem solving.
Stating that someone shouldn’t problem solve, while being oblivious to your own thin hypothetical, is perilously close to ignorance and close mindedness.
It is a certainly a form of gatekeeping, and blindness to one’s own biases.
Why not check our assumptions? They are obvious to you, but
1) Will anyone else come up with those same assumptions given a short 1 para of text?
2) How do yours assumption hold up to scrutiny unless they are exposed and discussed?
TLDR: Providing a hypothetical isn’t a full stop in a discussion. It’s the opposite.