Should CEO's and other big wigs be the first to get fired when business choose to lay off thousands of people?
You've read or had worked for a company that isn't doing a good job and they are chooseing to lay off thousands or hundreds of workers. Well I feel that the CEO and the big wigs who make all the big bucks to just sit in meetings are the ones at fault. They should be the first to loose their jobs. They are the ones who set the goals and the planning for the business. The workers below them are just following orders and when the company is loosing money shouldn't the one who put the planning and the goals be the one to take the heat not the workers following orders?
- klbyLv 61 decade agoBest Answer
Unfortunately though they are the last ones to go and the blame is transferred to Middle Management---ie the on-line supervsion and similar grade positions in the organization--these are the ones who get it from the bottom and from the top and are generally acknolwedged to be the ones most screwed in the company---they are the scapegoat layer !
Once in a great while guys like Kenneth Lay and the others at ENRON get their just deserts but in that case it was outright fraud not just bad judgement.
The ethics crisis in business is what preciptated the lopsided top-heavy phenomenon that is resulted in the dissolution of the American Middle Class. Profit-only mentality has become dominant in the management ranks and middle class working people have been losing their jobs to off-shore low-bid comparable workers(if the work tasks are too complicated for this low paid help to comprehend/carry-out then the management will bust their as-ses to make it simpler/degrade the individual task/further disect it to several stages or locations just to get it out of the USA and into the hands of the low wage earners).
Management feeds itself first-kind of like survival-and this is in fact necessary---there has to be some one in control so no matter how grevious the sin the management has the divine right to stay, and since their say so is the one that counts they usually do.
Stockholders can revolt but since the CEO's are usually large stockholders themselves they can manage to keep them selves voted into favorable light.
When I began my working life ('64) it was considered usual for someone to start with a reliable company and stay the course until it was gold watch+pension time. During these years it changed gradually to the present situation where as far as I can see anyone figuring on staying with one company for eternity is a fool ! Things change too fast, policies toward employees change(on occassion for the better !) and so to take full advantage of one's talents they must be shared if but only consecutively by multiple employers.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Case in point: Sprint
New CEO came in a couple months ago after the previous CEO was fired.
First thing the new CEO did was fire the interim CEO, the CFO, a couple VPs, and then announced 4000 employees were also going to get laid off.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
In many cases you are right, but the CEO and other bigwigs are the ones making the decision to lay off people and they are not about to fire themselves.
Sometimes, however, the CEO loses his job when things go wrong. Then the board of directors gives him the boot.