I’ve got an opinion that may not be a majority here. And I can see how it could go wrong sometimes, especially from the perspective of a founder CEO.
But, IMO boards should be dangerous to CEOs. In the long run it is good, and in some cases necessary, for a company’s long-term health.
There are tons of examples where a CEO change was necessary to resolve distractions, right the corporate ship, and allow a company to pass through a crisis into a new period of growth. And whether the CEO resigns or is literally fired, the locus of pressure is almost always the board’s power to fire them.
Imagine being CEO without that—you’re in charge of everything, with no accountability or consequences for anything. There is no way to maintain perspective and focus over time. Everyone wants to please you or at least avoid your displeasure. The company gets distorted over time by your personal preferences and preoccupations.
I would argue this is the core of the problem at Facebook. That company would be much better off if there was a way to change leadership there, or at least threaten to.
But, IMO boards should be dangerous to CEOs. In the long run it is good, and in some cases necessary, for a company’s long-term health.
There are tons of examples where a CEO change was necessary to resolve distractions, right the corporate ship, and allow a company to pass through a crisis into a new period of growth. And whether the CEO resigns or is literally fired, the locus of pressure is almost always the board’s power to fire them.
Imagine being CEO without that—you’re in charge of everything, with no accountability or consequences for anything. There is no way to maintain perspective and focus over time. Everyone wants to please you or at least avoid your displeasure. The company gets distorted over time by your personal preferences and preoccupations.
I would argue this is the core of the problem at Facebook. That company would be much better off if there was a way to change leadership there, or at least threaten to.