In an ideal world (therefore not ruled by humans) the word CEO would just mean that someone has to take care of the “big picture” duties and(/or?) owns the company. Yes, they would have more income than the average cannon fodder, but nothing crazy.
Being a CEO shouldn’t mean anything bad on its own. Too bad we’re just humans, therefore inherently greedy and selfish to various extents, and obviously the most scummy, selfish, greedy pricks just get selected into the role more often (or born into it). Just be aware that CEO ≠ evil automatically.
I think people are pretty clear that it’s not the ceo part that makes people evil, it’s just that the behavior it normally takes to get to that position within a big company is basically never rainbows and Mr Rogers.
That ‘financial responsibility to maximize shareholder profit’ isn’t a joke and it often takes people with very little empathy to do it. With maybe some exceptions for some small companies or people who built the business from the ground up, i can’t think of a single person in a CEO role, or aspiring to one, that would make anything close to a good ‘friend’, or even what most people would consider a good person.
The Friedman doctrine, also called shareholder theory, is a normative theory of business ethics advanced by economist Milton Friedman which holds that the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. This shareholder primacy approach views shareholders as the economic engine of the organization and the only group to which the firm is socially responsible. As such, the goal of the firm is to increase its profits and maximize returns to shareholders.
I’m trying to find the story I listened to about this on NPR a few years ago, but it essentially discussed how this doctrine was taken up after the stagflation in the 1970s (particularly as Reagan was heavily influenced by Milton Friedman). The main point was that it seemed like the traditional economic system was collapsing at that time, and Friedman’s ideas argued that it was because businesses were not focused enough on profits. Instead, many businesses were trying to be part of a broader community and work on doing things that were good for the public. Friedman’s idea was that this was too economically inefficient and that a businesses only ethical obligation should be to make money for the shareholders, and that the shareholders could decide for themselves on how too help the public.
This went over very well with business leaders, and it helped ushered in the Gordon Gecko era of unironic “greed is good”.
In an ideal world (therefore not ruled by humans) the word CEO would just mean that someone has to take care of the “big picture” duties and(/or?) owns the company. Yes, they would have more income than the average cannon fodder, but nothing crazy.
Being a CEO shouldn’t mean anything bad on its own. Too bad we’re just humans, therefore inherently greedy and selfish to various extents, and obviously the most scummy, selfish, greedy pricks just get selected into the role more often (or born into it). Just be aware that CEO ≠ evil automatically.
I think people are pretty clear that it’s not the ceo part that makes people evil, it’s just that the behavior it normally takes to get to that position within a big company is basically never rainbows and Mr Rogers.
That ‘financial responsibility to maximize shareholder profit’ isn’t a joke and it often takes people with very little empathy to do it. With maybe some exceptions for some small companies or people who built the business from the ground up, i can’t think of a single person in a CEO role, or aspiring to one, that would make anything close to a good ‘friend’, or even what most people would consider a good person.
You can’t be a CEO of lots of these companies and act ethically.
Like: legally.
They have a legal fiduciary duty to maximize profits for shareholders. That trumps everything else, including the lives of customers and employees.
One thing to note: that hasn’t always been the case. This is something that can change.
It really started in the late 1970s with the Friedman Doctrine.
I’m trying to find the story I listened to about this on NPR a few years ago, but it essentially discussed how this doctrine was taken up after the stagflation in the 1970s (particularly as Reagan was heavily influenced by Milton Friedman). The main point was that it seemed like the traditional economic system was collapsing at that time, and Friedman’s ideas argued that it was because businesses were not focused enough on profits. Instead, many businesses were trying to be part of a broader community and work on doing things that were good for the public. Friedman’s idea was that this was too economically inefficient and that a businesses only ethical obligation should be to make money for the shareholders, and that the shareholders could decide for themselves on how too help the public.
This went over very well with business leaders, and it helped ushered in the Gordon Gecko era of unironic “greed is good”.