I recently had an interesting discussion with a couple of collegues on what percentage of a company's success can be attribued to its CEO? We could not close the debate as my collegues opined that luck plays a 90% role and the rest being other factors (CEO included).
I have a totally different viewpoint. I believe that CEO is responsible for both the success and failure of a company to the extent of 75%. (Dont look at absolute numbers.. both 75 and 90... they are just to show how strong the opionion is). I belong to school of thought that "genius is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration" and hence I believe it is CEO's skills in aligning the organisation and making it a success.
What would be good measures to test this theory?
I got many interesting answers to this question when I posted it on linked-in network. See the responses here.
Full Link: http://www.linkedin.com/answers/management/planning/MGM_PLN/63783-1316944
If you have any interesting observations or opinions to share, do comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
For a garage startup doing a remarkable product which is "needed" by prospective customers (and hence would obviously sell), that designation of CEO doesn't matter and hence doesn't exist. But it's not hard to see that this is not a "90%" scenario. It's probably less than a percent.
For most organizations CEO's role is crucial in leading the company to success (or failure).
Thanks for the entry and question which could evolve into a nice-to-read-and-enriching thread.
Post a Comment