http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aQ._YJhEj_Jo
So?
I work for an IT company. The CEO knows little to nothing about computers. His job is to run the business.
BTW, in my thirty years in the IT business, I have found that this situation is the norm, not the exception.
And the President/Chancellor of a university cannot possibly know each and every field taught there. His/her job is to raise funds, keep the university running on an even keel, shmooze the politicals and political wannabes, soothe egos, keep the university solvent, etc.
Much like a corporate head, whose business is business, no matter what the product produced and sold.
Quote from: followsthewolf on June 10, 2009, 12:48:39 PM
And the President/Chancellor of a university cannot possibly know each and every field taught there. His/her job is to raise funds, keep the university running on an even keel, shmooze the politicals and political wannabes, soothe egos, keep the university solvent, etc.
Much like a corporate head, whose business is business, no matter what the product produced and sold.
Yes! Thank you! Even better example!
Unfortunately I have a bit of a problem with this guy myself, specifically because he sits on the Board of Exxon and Burlington Northern - Santa Fe railroad.
The potential for conflict of interest seems rather obvious to me. . . But perhaps I am a bit too skeptical. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 01:01:53 PM
Unfortunately I have a bit of a problem with this guy myself, specifically because he sits on the Board of Exxon and Burlington Northern - Santa Fe railroad.
The potential for conflict of interest seems rather obvious to me. . . But perhaps I am a bit too skeptical. . .
Legitimate concern, of course. But for anyone to oppose him because he doesn't "know anything about cars" is the epitome of idiocy.
"Whitacre is a board member of Exxon Mobile and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe."
http://www.informationweek.com/news/global-cio/personnel/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=217800381 (http://www.informationweek.com/news/global-cio/personnel/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=217800381)
One source for my statement, JIC. . .
Quote from: Bo D on June 10, 2009, 01:20:05 PM
. . . But for anyone to oppose him because he doesn't "know anything about cars" is the epitome of idiocy.
Agreed. But one would think that he should resign from those two boards prior to taking the helm, and given his Bio he may very well do just that. (It wouldn't surprise me if he did it himself, and in fact instill a much increased faith in him if he did).
Although I am not convinced that AT&T is such a great company, it is hard to argue with his record and accomplishments / numbers.
That potential for conflict of interest is a big one in my view though. Trust no one!
If the "system" in business works as it should (and doesn't become an inbred family), the skill (or lack of it) in directing the company should be the litmus test of the ceo's retention.
The shareholders are responsible for keeping the board of directors and the upper management honest.
If they don't, their stock becomes worthless, while they let the bloated thieves walk away with huge wallets.
Their collective fault. They have the power to vote. If they don't get involved with their investments......................oh, well.
And, PH, by the way, the fact he is on Exxon's board is a tad troubling for me, too.
It's ok, GG; you don't know anything about anything but we still let you post here.
Quote from: Bo D on June 10, 2009, 01:20:05 PM
Legitimate concern, of course. But for anyone to oppose him because he doesn't "know anything about cars" is the epitome of idiocy.
Maybe not, the idiots that got GM to where it is today, were not car guys. When GM was thriving, it was lead by car guys who had a gut instinct for what the customer wanted. The past ass-hats in charge didn't have a clue, so here we are today.
Yeah, I'm still pissed over them dropping Oldsmobile, another decision by a non car guy. Saturn should have gotten the boot instead.
Quote from: Mr442 on June 10, 2009, 03:45:28 PM
Maybe not, the idiots that got GM to where it is today, were not car guys. When GM was thriving, it was lead by car guys who had a gut instinct for what the customer wanted. The past ass-hats in charge didn't have a clue, so here we are today.
Yeah, I'm still pissed over them dropping Oldsmobile, another decision by a non car guy. Saturn should have gotten the boot instead.
Maybe we should agree on the definition for "car guy." IMHO, the title of the thread (and the title of the article) seemed to infer that the guy should be like a garage mechanic. Not that that's a bad thing, of course. I just think that the garage mechanic may be a little under-qualified to run a large corporation. ;)
Quote from: Bo D on June 10, 2009, 03:58:18 PM
I just think that the garage mechanic may be a little under-qualified to run a large corporation. ;)
Oh, now come on...
Quote from: Exterminator on June 10, 2009, 03:31:23 PM
It's ok, GG; you don't know anything about anything but we still let you post here.
:confused:
Quote from: Exterminator on June 10, 2009, 03:59:40 PM
Oh, now come on...
I'm just trying to be nice and get along, Dude. I see his point too.
disregard my previous post.........I get it now.
(I did not read who started the post...oops)
Exterm,
What do YOU know? I know plenty more than you and that's obvious.
It DOES matter when you have management that knows next to nothing about the product... It matters a lot.
If you think it doesn't matter, then go back in time to when management came from employees who proved their worth and worked their way to the top, and realize that companies were fiscally healthier back then.
Now, board managements bring in whiz kids from some other industry, and think they can work magic with another industry they know nothing about.
You let the accountants do accounting. You do not ask an accountant for advice about how to cut costs. He'll show you on paper where all the money is flowing out, but then, he won't understand WHY it may be crucial for that sector of money to be flowing out, to protect even more flows of money from exiting the building.
Let me give you one example... One of the things I saw happen repeatedly was new management coming in, and immediately setting about to cut costs.
Now when you choose a vendor, these are the top three considerations, and in this order EXACTLY:
1- Quality
2- Service
3- Price
What happened over the past couple of decades is that seasoned and experienced employees were run off, because hey, no one is that important to the company. ANYBODY can figure this stuff out.
And some managements started demanding lowest bids only, without allowing for quality or service. This is STILL going on, and it is very dangerous. You get corrupted machinery and transport lines, and on and on... which then causes serious maintenance problems, and ends up costing the company more in the end... and then management decides to piecemeal sell the problems to some poor independent smuck with little capital, who then ends up losing employees when the corrupted machinery fails in a major way and people end up dead.
THIS is what is wrong with corporate America today. Enough is enough. Get rid of the money-grubbing idiots who think they can run a business they have no experience with at the most basic levels.
Quote from: Gardengirl on June 13, 2009, 01:40:08 AM
Exterm,
What do YOU know? I know plenty more than you and that's obvious.
Not the way I see it.
Quote from: Gardengirl on June 13, 2009, 01:40:08 AM
Exterm,
What do YOU know? I know plenty more than you and that's obvious.
About what...having babies?