If your leadership is 1% better than your competitor, that could be the threshold needed to wipe your competitor out of the market, increasing company profit margins by hundreds of percent.
To draw a parallel, think about school grades. Going from 60 to 70% is insignificant. Going from 70 to 80% is a little more interesting. But going from 96 to 97? That has significantly more meaning than 66 to 67.
Those end numbers matter. A CEO being a tiny bit better has a huge impact.
Fixing the CEOs pay isn’t going to do anything for a plethora of reasons. Late stage capitalism is simply a failure and it shows.
this kind of thinking is only satisfactory for a company if the CEO is terrible to begin with, or if the company has no interest in the professional growth of the employees. Training the people who maintain your product only ensures that you are delivering better product.
You can schmooze and talk all you want, but it’s not going to mean anything if you’re selling crap that no one can maintain well
Yea so we agree here. That’s where a good CEO picking good leadership comes in, and why it’s so essential and worthwhile to pay for one that can do that
I suspect rich influential people of actively keeping “their inner circle” small so that “access to influential people” is such a scarce valuable resource that they can then sell at exorbitant prices (salaries) to companies.
If the lowest paid employee becomes 50% better, nothing at the macro scale changes.
If the CEO becomes a fraction better, the effect is multiplied throughout the company.
What does a CEO “becoming better” mean?
An employee becoming better means that they yield more sales or better product
If your leadership is 1% better than your competitor, that could be the threshold needed to wipe your competitor out of the market, increasing company profit margins by hundreds of percent.
To draw a parallel, think about school grades. Going from 60 to 70% is insignificant. Going from 70 to 80% is a little more interesting. But going from 96 to 97? That has significantly more meaning than 66 to 67.
Those end numbers matter. A CEO being a tiny bit better has a huge impact.
Fixing the CEOs pay isn’t going to do anything for a plethora of reasons. Late stage capitalism is simply a failure and it shows.
this kind of thinking is only satisfactory for a company if the CEO is terrible to begin with, or if the company has no interest in the professional growth of the employees. Training the people who maintain your product only ensures that you are delivering better product.
You can schmooze and talk all you want, but it’s not going to mean anything if you’re selling crap that no one can maintain well
Yea so we agree here. That’s where a good CEO picking good leadership comes in, and why it’s so essential and worthwhile to pay for one that can do that
I suspect rich influential people of actively keeping “their inner circle” small so that “access to influential people” is such a scarce valuable resource that they can then sell at exorbitant prices (salaries) to companies.