I think it's a good example of when you have the culture where you "just hire a new CEO", you limit the upside more often than not. Compared to a groomed candidate who has been there for years, or better yet a technically capable founder if it's a technology company.
Outside hiring can be what makes a CEO more like a "ceremonial" position or something, where if the "best of the best" is truly needed, there's still a lingering flavor that it's like hiring the very best interior decorator or landscaping gardener. It may be the best, and appearances have never been more outstanding, but tastes can change so there's an inherent perception of a temporary era stemming from this kind of thing.
A company like Boeing is going to be at its best when the top person has truly known how to build aircraft their entire life.
OTOH, a candidate CEO from a completely different industry, especially an experienced financial manipulator, could have already reached such a stratospheric salary history that it dwarfs anything achieved by anyone technically qualified. It costs a lot more than reasonable to recruit this kind of inflated ego or CV, and it wasn't always supposed to be forever. With the kind of multiple they are paying the hired CEO compared to the technically qualified leader, they expect that same multiple of financial performance to be achieved starting from that point forward, probably when they need it most or many wouldn't do it. With a bonanza like that they can justify paying the CEO exorbitantly, and they can be expected to retire in only a few years when things can be re-evaluated. When people blindly think it's actually worth it, that's where their thinking goes wrong. This can be very persuasive to shareholders who don't know anything about building aircraft themselves. Once all the Jack Welch wannabes pounced on this it's never been the same.
Hence an employee-owned company that builds aircraft, if they do decide to hire a non-aircraft-experienced CEO (even just for the expected short-term), at least that decision is being made exclusively by "aircraft-building" shareholders.
That may be even more confusing, I've been watching this dumpster fire unfold for decades due to some kind of underlying senselessness, and this is one of the things least sensible that's not well recognized any more. I'm not surprised Boeing was brought up but I wasn't expecting it when I pulled this article out of its coffin without a comment, where it had been immediately buried before it had a chance to trigger anybody else, capitalist or not.
I didn't submit the article but it's interesting to see how much it blew up and where it went. I figured if I did comment I would be adding something about an employee-owned company founded by a wizard scientist whom I had met before he founded it. It was iffy at first but now they can't be stopped, he's long retired but the company is now stronger than alternatives even though they have always had the disadvantage of competing when they are mere entrepreneurs in a capitalist-dominated market which they can never be expected to realistically dominate, just participate in.
I really don't even think every company should be employee-owned, for one thing there might not be as much of a thriving capitalist market to participate in. As that would be approached though, a worthwhile substitute might be a market where capital does not dominate, but I wouldn't be holding my breath on that.
I'm with you 100% on retiring after the first quarter too :)
If I had a strong point to make I probably would have made the initial comment, but I guess I felt it was enough to just vouch for the naked submission and let it stand on its own. And within an hour it went through the roof, sheesh, who knew?
