The Emperor's We Accidentally Crown
Most know that Larry Ellison rules over Oracle with an iron fist, but we know that Oracle exists today due to his genius and shrewd business acumen. It was his money that he put on the line to make it what it is today. One can also say that about Steve Jobs and Apple when he was still alive. Hence the Cult of Steve and the Cult of Larry.
Yet, it is not so acceptable if Tim Cook turns out the same way. While he is CEO of one of the most successful companies in the world, he wasn't the one who built it from scratch.
So why do some CEOs like to play emperor, and make the whole company revolve around his own whims and fancies? Is it just pure ego at play?
I cannot see how people can think micro-managing is such a good thing, even if the company's financial performance is still commendable.
The whole efficiency of the company takes a hit when strategies shift with the changing mood of the leader. When pre-meetings are arranged to brief him about what will be presented, so he seems in touch with what is happening on the ground.
Well, you might not know anything about a leader's style as an ordinary share-holder, but I do question those who control larger stakes. Are they just concerned about the short-term financial performance, without any care for the internal workings of an organization?
Posted via LiveJournal app for iPhone.