It’s amazing to me, but looking back over nearly a decade of writing I find posts that still impress, with information that is as useful now as when it was written. Golden Oldies is a collection of what I consider some of the best posts during that time. Read other Golden Oldies here

I’m no happier about the AIG and other bonuses paid to screwed up Wall Street banks, but I’m not sure why any of us are surprised.

“In the largest 25 corporate bankruptcies between 1999 and 2002, while hundreds of billions of dollars of investor wealth and over 100,000 jobs disappeared, the Financial Times found the “barons of bankruptcy” made off with $3.3 billion.”

Giant compensation packages, guaranteed bonuses and platinum parachutes are excused by Boards and executives as necessary to attract the “best and brightest,” but here’s what’s really going on.

The ‘name’ demands outsize compensation/stock options/guaranteed bonus/etc. in order to validate their ‘brand’.

Those responsible for hiring not only meet the demands, but even exceed them in an effort to attain or sustain the company’s reputation as a better home for ‘stars’—the more stars you have the greater the bragging rights— mine’s bigger than yours in high school locker room talk.

Now let’s consider the folly of this attitude.

Those hiring often seek a name brand in the mistaken belief that the brand comes with a warranty that guarantees good results.

But no matter who you hire you’re actually paying for their past performance, which is always influenced by

• circumstances—boss and company positioning in its market and industry
• environment—culture and colleagues;

and let us not forget that minor factor

• the economy.

The hiring mindset is that everything the brand accomplished was done in a total vacuum and dependent only on the brand’s own actions, therefore changing every single surrounding factor will have no impact on performance.

Put like that it sounds pretty stupid, doesn’t it.

This is one of the prime reasons that so many CEOs bring their ‘own team’ over when they move, as do managers all the way down the food chain—they know they didn’t do it alone.

CEOs aren’t like movie and rock stars whose very names draw consumers into spending money—nobody ever bought a product from GE because Jack Welch was CEO, nor do they carry Jobs’ iPods—so why pay them that way?

Moreover, assuming that performance occurring during an expansion is a valid yardstick for performance in general, let alone a downturn, is sheer idiocy.

You have only to remember the difficulties faced by people whose management skills were honed between 1991 and 2000, the longest expansion in our history. When the recession hit in March of 2001 they had no experience whatsoever of how to drive revenue or manage in a down economy.

That recession and the previous one in 1990 lasted only 8 months each. The longest recession we’ve had was 2 years, January-July 1980 and July 1981-November 1982, and that one had a 12 month break in it. This means there are a very small number of managers with any actual experience managing in anything even close to what’s happening now.

The current recession officially started in December 2007, so it’s already 15 months old and the end isn’t in sight.

What experience makes these folks the ‘best and brightest’ for today’s world?

Just what the hell are companies still guaranteeing oversized compensation and exorbitant exit packages when now is definitely the time to pay for future performance—no guarantees.

Sad, isn’t it. Seven years and nothing’s changed, in fact, it’s gotten much worse.  

The wealth of the richest 62 people grew by more than half a trillion dollars in that last half-decade, while the wealth of the poorest 50 percent of people globally decreased by more than $1 trillion during the same period.

Image credit: flickr

A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read all If the Shoe Fits posts here

After reading Alexander Haislip’s post, I scurried around and removed the “CEO” from as many profiles as I could find/remember.

Back in 1999 I started RampUp Solutions I called myself “founder” and I was happy with that, but I kept being told I should use ‘CEO’, so I did. (Hey, even smart people can give poor advice.)

However, I was never comfortable with the title because I’ve worked with dozens of CEOs and knew that I didn’t/couldn‘t do what they do.

Not only did not, but could not.

Now, thirteen years later, my gut reaction has been confirmed; not only the reaction, but the reasons.

Ask yourself: would you still be CEO if it were a $100 billion business or would you require what’s euphemistically called “adult supervision?”

Considering what passes for a $100 billion business these days you may want to add ‘sustainable’ to the description.

There is nothing wrong with bringing in a “real” CEO and learning the ropes—think Larry Page and Google—but assuming a title of which you aren’t really capable smacks of a five-year-old dressing up in mommy’s/daddy’s clothes.

Actually, I’m surprised I didn’t delete those three letters years ago when I shared some of the things I’ve heard CEO really means. Call it a major case of disconnect.

I hope Haislip’s and my post inspires you to find the time to expunge CEO from your social profiles and other places, including your business cards.

You might also want to take a hard look at other company titles, especialy on the executive level.

Option Sanity™ reduces pretension.
Come visit Option Sanity for an easy-to-understand, simple-to-implement stock allocation system.  It’s so easy a CEO can do it.

Warning.
Do not attempt to use Option Sanity™ without a strong commitment to business planning, financial controls, honesty, ethics, and “doing the right thing.”
Use only as directed.
Users of Option Sanity may experience sudden increases in team cohesion and worker satisfaction. In cases where team productivity, retention and company success is greater than typical, expect media interest and invitations as keynote speaker.

Flickr image credit: HikingArtist

A few days ago an article about titles in Forbes caught my eye—and got my goat.

It caught me because I’m not a lover of sweeping generalizations, since very few hold up against reality and this was one of them.

In this case, the author, with a typical consultant-pundit in support, denigrates as silly the raft of new CXO functions in business.

While I agree that they can be empty window dressing, the majority I’ve seen are powerful positions. You can tell the difference by the report structure—if the position doesn’t report directly to the top boss—CEO, COO, President or owner—it’s likely fluff.

Another statement, that titles were “likely dreamed up by the marketing team,” was really hilarious considering the corporate examples cited.

Kodak and Dell appointed Chief Listeners. Facebook recently added two Chief Privacy Officers. Coca-Cola is really gung-ho on the trend, employing a Chief Administrative Officer, Chief Sustainability Officer, Chief Scientific and Regulatory Officer, and Chief Quality and Product Integrity Officer, among others. Microsoft has a Chief People Officer; IBM a Chief Information Officer; Xerox a Chief Strategy Officer; and New York City has its very own Chief Digital Officer.

I find it hard to believe that the likes of Sam Palmisano, Michael Dell or Steve Balmer, let alone Michael Bloomberg, have marketing designing their organization.

The list also displays a high level of ignorance, since several of those “silly” titles, e.g., Chief Information Officer (CIO) and Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) have been around for decades, while others reflect important new priorities.

It’s not that I condone title inflation, but making sweeping statements that disparage efforts by companies to focus knowledge, skills and resources on specific problems and increase accountability by putting one person in charge are worse.

Creating new areas of responsibility to meet the needs of a changing world is necessary and bosses who ignore the changes or the need are setting their companies up for failure sooner, rather than later.

As long as the CXO has a well-defined mission, the authority to achieve it and direct access to the top the position deserves respect and support.

Outsiders who belittle that effort should be ignored.

Flickr image credit: Bengt Nyman

CEOs are an interesting species of executives.

CEOs are often lauded one quarter for their vision and leadership and derided the next quarter for the same thing.

Some suffer from severe arrogance syndrome, while others have either temporary or chronic foot-in-mouth disease.

But whether world-class geniuses or world-class asses CEOs  are rarely boring.

For those who set their career sights on the corner office, success used to be measured by the size of the company and bigger always equaled better—but in technology that’s changing.

CEOs, especially those of large, public corporations, have one especially cat-like trait—they always land on their feet even when they are fired—as happens more and more frequently these days.

As with everything there is a right way and a wrong way to fire a CEO, with Carol Bartz and Mark Hurd the poster children of the wrong way. So, here’s some good advice on how to do it the right way.

Finally, with the use of social media accelerating, the pros and cons of  CEO blogging have changed markedly from the original debates.

Have a terrific weekend!

Flickr image credit: pedroelcarvalho

I have 5 stories for you today about CEOs, two who don’t and four that do.

Pundits (consultants, academics, bloggers) are fond of lauding CEOs for their vision and skill at imparting it to their followers—Richard Fuld, Bob Nardelli, Jeff Skilling, Bernard Ebbers, Dennis Kowalski, the list is long—but after their meltdown you hear only from the Monday morning quarterback crowd.

But if you want to sort the true stars from the others, you need to take a long-term look—not Wall Street’s typical quarter or even a decade—at more than the stock price.

Moreover, you need to look at the down times; the times when the economy sucks, yet the CEO still finds ways to foster a great culture and stoke innovation—not just cut staff and threaten execs with termination if they don’t make their numbers.

For better or worse, it’s not in the vision or the leading, it’s the doing.

Our first story is should be a familiar name to all of you. Remember Sandy Weill? The man who drove the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 and whose deal making built CITI, the colossus that never really jelled. He was named “C.E.O. of the Year” in 2002 by Chief Executive Magazine, but that was then and this is now.

The travails of newspapers aren’t news anymore, but Frank Blethen, CEO the Seattle Times Co. has made matters much worse in the name of family.

Far on the other side are General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt and Procter & Gamble’s A.G. Lafley. The two are good friends and Fortune senior editor Geoff Colvin shares a rare joint interview with them.

In today’s cutthroat business world how many CEOs would lift a finger to save their competition? Ted Baseler, CEO of Chateau Ste. Michelle did exactly that when freezing temperatures wiped out the grape harvest in 2004. He didn’t just save his competition; he’s credited with saving the entire Washington state wine industry. Baseler is the quintessential big picture guy.

“We want Washington known. All of it. We’re not about to fight over whose bottle of wine gets sold. We’re competing with Napa, with France. We’re not competing with Washington wineries.”

My last offering is an interview with Pete Peterson, co-founder of Blackstone Group, looks back on s storied career and offers his insights as to what’s needed to “rebuild the American dream.” There’s a video (that refuses to embed) and a PDF of the interview (requires free registration). I think you’ll find it interesting.

Image credit:  pedroCarvalho on flickr

There are many ways to build a career and Brian T. Moynihan chose one of the most unlikely—he fell up the corporate ladder into the CEO job at Bank of America.

It was a familiar role for Mr. Moynihan, who, in many ways, has had a career of falling into bigger jobs at the bank when executives were fired or shunted aside.

What is the essence of human nature? Flawed, say many theologians. Vicious and addicted to warfare, wrote Hobbes. Selfish and in need of considerable improvement, think many parents.

Nope, biologists are finding that babies are innately sociable and helpful to others—unfortunately they (we) grow up.

Would you like to live to be 100 or more? Several Wharton professors offer up a thoughtful overview of what that kind of longevity could mean.

Last, and maybe least, I decided that I shouldn’t miss the Tiger Woods band wagon, but only because KG Charles-Harris sent a scan of a great satirical take on the whole thing and it was just too good to resist.

Image credit:  MykReeve on flickr

Today I have two offerings about money and those who have it and one sanity update.

Let’s start with the sanity. A couple of months ago I asked if women really were less risk-prone and cited a woman=led startup that was planning on doing geo-thermal drilling in the worst earthquake zone in the country; apparently that project has been delayed.

Next, in case you missed it, is the newest listing of the Top 10 for CEO pay. I couldn’t decide between the two versions, CNN and the NY Times, so here are links to both; each has slightly different peripheral content.

Finally, for 30 years the rich have been getting richer. Think about it, in 1977 the top one ten-thousandth of households took home 0.9 percent of the nation’s income; three short decades later it took home 6 percent, but what’s happening now? Will it bounce back and continue? This analysis offers good information and doesn’t require a degree in economics to understand.

Image credit: MykReeve on flickr

Do you have a nickname? I’ll bet you also have a nicktitle—do you know it?

There’s an unwritten equation that who you are (your MAP) = what you do = what you’re called.

When you’re at the top of a company you’re called ‘CEO’.

But what’s the nicktitle? What does CEO mean these days?

When it comes to business titles people are creative and the variations are numerous and telling.

Here’s a tiny sample of what I’ve heard from people when asked to define ‘CEO’ based on what they read and their own experience.

On one hand you have

• Conceited Egomaniacal Overlord;
• Caddish Elitist Obstructionist;
• Controlling Embarrassing Obsessor;

and on the other you have

• Concerned Energetic Overachiever
• Caring Enabling Oddity
• Charismatic Enterprising Optimizer

and in-between you have thousands of variations.

What’s nicktitle?

If you don’t like your own it then it’s time to change your actions, which means changing your MAP.

And whether you consider that good or bad news, the main point never changes—it’s your choice.

For the sake of your staff, family, friends and other stakeholders I hope you choose wisely and well!

Image credit: Marco Bellucci on flickr

Although these three links are aimed at executives, I think you’ll find what they offer applies to everybody.

First is a Forbes article looks at what some CEOs keep in their office and explains how those items reflect the corporate culture—the premise holds true for managers at all levels and even for non-management.

Next is an interview with Richard Anderson, chief executive of Delta Air Lines. He offers some great career advice along with insightful comments on what he looks for when interviewing. Useful no matter which side of the desk you’re on.

Finally, the HBR Editor’s Blog talks about Myth of the Tireless Leader. The post has several links that illustrate and prove that lack of sleep does not yield smart actions, intelligent decisions or innovation. In fact, it’s just the opposite. Who knows, maybe after reading it you’ll stop bragging about how little sleep you need and get the rest required to be truly productive.

Image credit: MykReeve on flickr

CEOs have been envied for decades; the pedestal kept getting higher and we all know that the higher the pedestal the further the fall. Things started changing in the eighties and now CEOs as a group are scorned and reviled as symbols of ego and greed who caused most of the problems we’re facing.

Certainly some do qualify for that title, but tarring all CEOs with that brush is plain stupid, as stupid as judging any group based on the actions of a tiny minority—no matter how high profile its is.

Today’s links offer up info on the folks in the corner office, whether they’re one of the vast majority who work hard and are getting a bad rap or one of the folks who screwed up.

First for the good guys.

The Milken Institute’s Global Conference 2009 offers a video discussion at their recent conference called CEO: How Will It Stop Being a Dirty Word?

And a new website offers a place where CEOs post stuff to show that Not All CEOs Are Jerks.

Do you apologize when you screw up? An article in Chief Executive says that an apology can improve performance; while Steve Pearlstein talks about an almost confession from a Wall Street bigwig—as he says, it’s a start.

Last is a bad guy; an interview with a jailed CEO courtesy of the BBC. Remember Dennis Kozlowski? He of the $600 shower curtain? Listen to what he has to say about himself and current events.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: nono farahshila on flickr