UKC

Interesting topic (well, for me!) came up in the Guardian this week. Be interested to know what others think. It's actually the comments that are more interesting than the article (not unusual in the Guardian these days)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/05/women-ambition-top-jo...

The summary is that people don't actually want the top jobs.

I can relate to this. Whilst I've not been at the top, I've been close enough to see the diaries, and the top jobs may get paid silly money, but the other side of the coin is 2am conference calls, 24/7 working, minimal sleep, and very high pressure, plus the knowledge that potentially any decision you make today might mean you are out of a job tomorrow.

One individual whose diary I saw once had timetabled meetings from 4am (with Asia) through to 10pm (with the states). There isn't a work/life balance, it's just work.

The thing is, many folk see the CEOs of the world as largely doing nothing for their inflated pay packets, whilst the reality is vastly different.

So, the question is, would you be a CEO? Or is that a step too far? I think, for me, It's a step too far. My family and friends, hobbies and interests are too important to jack in for more stress, money or no money..

In reply to John_Hat:

Know what you mean, but I'd happily be a non exec director!

In reply to John_Hat:
When I started my career I thought I wanted to be CEO but the more senior I got the more I realised it wouldn't have been for me, largely for the reasons you highlight. I think the hard work would have been OK for a few years, but not into my late fifties. I think the constant pressure of making major and minor decisions would have got to me. I think it requires enormous self confidence or to be a psychopath!

Would have been nice to say I'd been one and had the paycheck to go with it though

Having said that, one friend who was a high profile CEO reckoned it was easier than being a senior manager. The knack was to appoint the right managers and delegate.

In reply to John_Hat:

Different motivations for different people. Some love running businesses as much as we love climbing. Being a CEO is a realised ambition as much as summiting a dream Peak or redpointing a dream route for a high achieving climber where all the personal sacrifices are worth it.

To varying degrees they enjoy the buzz of authority, decision making, being a pack leader, the status, the busyness and of course the rewards. I can understand that. But the all-consuming nature of it isn't for 99% of the rest of us and balance and a middle path represents a better fit.

In reply to John_Hat:

In my opinion, a good leader is the one who can delegate work to other people so he/she can do stuff others cannot. Your quoted example does not sound that it works that way.

In reply to John_Hat:

I part own / run a professional services firm and I know I have my limits. It has taken a toll on my climbing life for sure. In my younger years, I sacrificed career for climbing. In recent years I've gone the other way but I still don't think I could cope with the stress and time of being CEO of a v large business. Of course, there's a difference between unquoted and the reporting requirements of a quoted business.

In reply to John_Hat:
I was CEO of a FTSE quoted company. It was on the small side but too big for AIM. It was a very interesting job that relied on being able to delegate to strong captains of each division. However the demands of shareholders ultimately made the position untenable. They wanted dramatic share price growth in a matter of months but the short term mechanisms for boosting value (typically, hurried acquisitions) almost inevitably ran counter to long term strategic aims.

I went back to being my own shareholder and now have a majority share in a decent sized, albeit smaller, enterprise whose owners have my interests and those of my great co-workers and business partners at heart.

The pressures are significant and, as the OP states, escape is impossible, but the sense of being in control of my destiny, if not all my time, cannot be underestimated.

I wouldn't go back to the plc life.

In reply to John_Hat:

I've done those hours for rubbish money, give me the big chair any day!!

In reply to John_Hat:


I am sorry to say, but no one is worth £millions a year. It is grossly obscene. What on earth do you need so much money for? I wouldn't mind if they put it to good use, but they end up essentially using up more of earth's resources than they deserve.

OMG - I sound like my dad.

In reply to John_Hat:

My cousin's CEO of a major communications company overseas, and previously CEO of one here in the UK. He spends a lot of time away from his family, he'd flown in for a big family party last month, then was flying out again the day after on a round the world series of meetings. He's worth a mint and I'm sure he wouldn't do it if he didn't enjoy the challenge and the hard work, but the travel and money come at a big personal cost. I would not swap jobs with him!

In reply to all:

Interesting perspectives, thank you to all. I will look forward to the thread developing further

In reply to ByEek:


Bill Gates has arguably done more with his "excessive" wealth to irradicate malaria than any government.

Of course BG (Bill, not Bear) is an extreme example. But successful CEOs and entrepreneurs, while furthering the interests of a narrow group of shareholders, also create jobs for the unemployed, increase earnings at all levels of an enterprise, provide stability for families, support the infrastructure of communities and produce significant extra tax (PAYE, NI & CT) income for the state to spend where it's most needed (or piss away on vanity projects).

Nevertheless, I agree boardroom pay has lost touch with "real life" incomes, even as I understand the equation of shareholder return with executive pay.

In reply to ByEek:


Without high salaries and resulting personal megawealth we'd be bereft of truely beneficial organisation like the Wellcome Trust and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Some other mega/giga rich people use their money for the greater good - Elon musk is a good example, throwing his personal wealthy and more personal time than your CEO example into sustainable power and road transport and work towards getting people living on a 2nd planet.

It's only a minority of the very rich who do this mind you.

In reply to John_Hat: You can make an argument that having a very few individuals with a lot of money takes it out of the economy to a greater degree than having a larger pool of people with a smaller amount of money. There are limits to trickle down.

But I have never wanted to be a senior manager let alone a CEO: I realise that while I could, I don't like it, value it, so I leave it to someone who does and for whom the sacrifices would be worthwhile. I've earned a very good living being technically proficient, and am happy with that decision.

In reply to John_Hat:

Good thread.

A couple of observations I've made from the responses:

- everyone is assuming that 'being the CEO' means a top (and big company) with the associated income. The vast majority of CEOs aren't in that category. MDs of SMEs, the majority of startups and non-profits etc will be putting in similar hours to your example without the paycheck (I am one of these). I think at that level the motivation is either deeply personal (own business, cause you care about etc) or perhaps an appreciation of some of the other 'perks' such as not really having a line manager, managing a team, the risk and reward of making high profile (comparatively) decisions. There may not be the pressure of shareholders per se, but there will be the pressure of ensuring employees (and oneself) have job stability, customers, donors etc.

- I find it amusing that almost every reply that says they wouldn't want to be a ceo caveats it, implicitly or explicitly, with an assurance that they would be capable of doing the job. A lot of people aren't (even those in the job) - it's an often lonely job where, if you're doing it right, others get the credit when things go right and you get the blame when they don't. You need to make decisions, often ill informed and quick ones and, again, if you're doing the job right and keeping the organisation relevant (which involves constant change), a significant proportion of people will disagree with you and/or dislike you. As the OP infers, it's also relentless pressure but personal habits and routines can go some way to rectifying that.

In reply to wintertree:


This is just it. There are one or two people who use their wealth for good (or at least perceived good) but the vast majority seem happy to just sit on it and use it a token of penis length substitution. Just exactly what does someone with £100 million+ do with it? It is like playing Civilisation when you have defeated all your enemies. You simply collect cash faster than you can spend it.

In reply to OP


I have no issue with high pay. Its high pay and higher payoffs when businesses fail to create wealth, employment and shareholder value for society which is the problem.

Too many stories have been in the press over the last 20 years where senior execs in private and public organisations fail miserably yet walk away with fat severences.

In reply to John_Hat:

Given the choice, I wouldn't even have a job, let alone one as a CEO!

In reply to John_Hat:

I only got to FD of an SME and I wouldn't thank you to go back to the stress (albeit was during the crisis). That said I think what people forget about the whole pay thing is the risk, these guys (some of them) are definitely worth a lot of money. So how much is acceptable? £100k, £200k? If we agree that they're worth a lot then we have to say that due to the risk of being out of work tomorrow and never working again that in order to maintain a lifestyle that they are used to they probably need to be paid 10 times that, effectively as an insurance policy.

In my opinion they're welcome to what they get 'cause I wouldn't want the crap that comes with it.

In reply to John_Hat:
An uncle of my wife's was the chief exec at a large privately owned business employing 120, 000 people . Once told me he was glad that he idi not have to deal with the stock exchange as well. He left school at 14 and his first job was an usher at a cinema.

I did not envy his working day at all.

Now just works free for charities and has a few less stressful non exec roles to keep him busy. Fascinating to talk to. Would I have wanted his job......just not good enough. The guys/ women who run these big companies usually have something which sets them apart from the rest of us.

He is always encouraging me in my business.

In reply to Edradour:



I take your point but it is unnecessarily snidey given that topic question is: "Would you want to be a CEO?" rather than "Do you think you are capable of being a CEO and if so would you want to be?"

In reply to Edradour:

Terrific post. One the factors at play in the life of a CEO is how incredibly resilient you have to be. Every single day (I'd like to put those three words in capitals just to emphasise how true this is but I don't want to shout) something in your world goes wrong. How could it not when your role embraces and influences the experiences of hundreds or thousands of colleagues and your destiny is tossed on the waves of policy and the economy. You have the media on your back, the inland revenue wants to perform a surprise audit, the share price is going in the opposite direction than your soaring profits because the competitor you beat to that big contract has issued a profits warning and the analysts have downgraded your sector.

Then factor in that CEOs have all that other stuff: teenage daughters and elderly parents and marital relationships, the stuff that grinds many people down who don't have to endure those professional responsibilities.

And throughout all that you have to be tough enough to show fortitude, but caring enough to calm the fevered brows of those around you. You need to show clear direction but be ready to reverse the juggernaut. It takes a certain combination of single-mindedness and empathy that few possess.

And sooner or later, for all these burdens, you will be fired.

In reply to ukb shark:

Fair point but, equally, all the responses that say 'no I don't want to be a CEO' don't need to be qualified with 'but I could if I wanted to'...

In reply to John_Hat:

For more money in a month than I've seen in a lifetime, enough to pay off my house, start a decent pension and a bit left over for a nice glider... I'd be willing to forego a bit of sleep in the short term. Long term I've no interest.
Jk

In reply to BnB:

Thanks. Agree with all that you have written.

The best advice that I've ever been given is 'your job is to plan properly but the only thing you can guarantee is that the plan is absolutely not what will happen'.

In reply to BnB:

Also a terrific post. Thank you.

Mick

In reply to BnB:
What a load of pretentious crap.



You get paid to answer phone calls and emails, meet a few people. It's not hard. You get paid more than enough to at least drag your arse out of bed to answer 3am calls.

It'a laughable you throw words like resilience and fortitude about. It's just organisational skills. That's all.
You bunch of desk jockeys wouldn't know about resilience and fortitude if they kicked you in the face.

Some of the most spineless and selfish, out of touch with reality arseholes I have met have been MDs.


Resilience:
the capacity to recover quickly from difficulties; toughness.

Fortitude:
courage in pain or adversity.

In reply to BnB:


That brought a tear to my eye.

In reply to John_Hat: "Would you want to be a CEO?"

Whilst I admit being able to speak in 6 million forms of communication and understanding protocol and etiquette would be an advantage, if I had to have a 3 foot high droid follow me around all day, squeaking and getting all the good gigs with the Jedi's then no. Think I will stick with the office job

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


Have a "like"

In reply to BnB:

In my experience the CEOs of my company do the opposite - employee pay is held back, final salary pension is stopped, staff numbers are decreased, families are destabilised due to job insecurity, company structure is changed to avoid tax. The company has a public mission statement about improving the lives of customers and staff, but the reality is that nothing is done for customers or staff unless it improves the bottom line for the shareholders or the executive team.

In reply to BnB:


....and walk into another overpaid job. How often do senior executives end up sweeping the streets because of poor performance? You only have to look at the profiles on linked in of these sort of people to see what they're like.

In reply to John_Hat:

My BIL is Chief Executive of an NHS hospital in the south of England. He didn't really want the job but after one disastrous waster had had the position, a proper hooray Henry who seemed to have been appointed because he said the right things and knew the right people, he applied because, as he said, "If I don't do the job people like him will carry on making my life hell as his deputy."

He's been doing it for two years now and has found it immensely stressful. He says everybody wants to have a pop at you so you've got to be absolutely on top of your game. The opportunists are a major source of stress; he reckons that at any one time there are around 50 compensation seekers, either former patients or disgruntled staff, having a go at the hospital. He is liked and respected by everybody from the nursing staff upwards because he started his career as a male nurse and got where he is by hard work and by being an all-round good bloke. However he has now had enough of the stress and has handed in his notice. I'm sure he can afford to retire and I know he bloody well deserves it.

In reply to BnB:
It's really a generalisation, plenty of CEOs are good at their job, don't get overly stressed, and enjoy it.
The term CEO encompasses so many different people and sectors I'm not sure it makes much sense.

In reply to RomTheBear:


What is?

In reply to Bootrock:
Jealous? Or bitter? It's hard to tell

In reply to wbo:


That's what i thought.

In reply to OP. Absolutely not. The key skill is to be able to balance work and life. I committed to my career over the last 15 years. I'm now at a point where i've decided enough is enough. I want to get back to enjoying what i've worked for rather than looking for the next rung on the ladder. And i'm no where near the level of a CEO.

In reply to BnB:

Not about a CEO, but close enough...last year I went to NY on business. I was fortunate enough to fly on one of those small BA flights from City Airport where the whole plane is business (closest I will ever get to flying on a private jet). I looked around the cabin as the doors shut and there were only 15 of us on the plane and I recognized 6 or 7 from my company (not to speak to but seen around the office). The chap next to me though was clearly not corporate. He was wearing a heavy metal t shirt which had been through the wash 500 times, ripped jeans and flip flops, I would guess at 40 years old. After we had taken off one of the other passengers I recognized came over and spoke with him. Interesting....so later on we got chatting, he was very normal, and I asked him if he worked at my firm. He did. Global head of technology he said. I jokingly asked him how many people report into him.....12,000. Cool guy, very laid back and the lesson was never judge a book by its cover.

In reply to wbo:


Or just ignorant?

In reply to Bootrock:




The knowledge that a lot of people's mortgages (homes) and the incomes for their families rely on decisions being the right ones doesn't rest lightly on any MDs who have some integrity, I'd suggest that can being an MD can indeed require resilience.

In reply to BnB:


Your posts.

In reply to Timmd:


True, but it's a competitive marketplace. Making good calls for your company might hit your competitors hard, and that could also result in a bad output for families too. I remember getting decent bonuses when a friend who worked at our competitors lost his job.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Which can be the nature of business I guess, but it doesn't stop individuals from feeling the responsibility for the people who are working in the same company as them. It depends how one looks at things I guess, only as far as one's company, or at other people in others ones too.

I'm just trying to write from my own experience. What specifics were omitted?

In reply to BnB:
I wouldn't worry about it. Whatever anybody writes on here, somebody manages to find something wrong with it.

In reply to Timmd:


Question.

Who needs the thickest skin? CEO or UKC poster?

In reply to Rick Graham:



Quality!!

In reply to Timmd:


It's interesting why people do this. The fact that their own fortunes and feelings seem to be linked, and then it manifests as a feeling of responsibility for their employees. Integrity, or just a self-delusion?

In reply to Timmd:


This is a very interesting line. I feel a strong sense of responsibility towards my co-workers but I can honestly say I've never pondered the impact of our successes on our competitors 'employees. They are outside the "family".

Which reminds me. My favourite TV drama about being a CEO/business owner is the Sopranos. Tony is very much the "businessman". Always caught between family and running the firm, every time he gets all the channels of his world into alignment someone lets a bomb off in the office or at home. The fact that, in his world, the bomb isn't always metaphorical, shouldn't detract from what is a spectacular realisation of the struggle to reconcile the pressures of leadership at work and at home.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
Self interest and integrity (or something which seems like it) mixed, perhaps?

I guess somebody who isn't nice might just decide to stay for the pay packet while the going is good and salt it away until/for if things go wrong, and walk away quite happily, while others might see it as their role to do their job as well as they can, and in the long term it pays off for them too from the company doing well?

In evolutionary terms, I gather we've evolved to look out for the group because it benefits ourselves as individuals, due to finding safety from others, and because .it's easier to do more things, and things which an individual would manage, too.

In my head I've just started wondering about a good definition for integrity, and whether that can truly apply to looking after a group where it's in one's interests to? It almost seems like something a book needs writing about.

In reply to Timmd:


Maybe the concept just creates confusion, like trying to consider anything in terms of morals. Doesn't everybody want to be one of the good guys? Doesn't everyone try to blame the world's problems on a group they're not a part of?