Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I'd guess that macroeconomic conditions could have nothing to do with what an executive did. I'm sure there are cases where you're held responsible for absolute, rather than relative performance, so even if you did some brilliant thing they minimized downside, if the stock went down you're still screwed.

This tangentially reminds me of the gas price stuff. I (while not a Democrat) see Biden et al getting a lot of flack for gas prices, while realistically there is not some magic lever that the US could throw that would change the overall economic conditions - I'm sure they could do better or worse, but prices would still be higher. The subtlety either gets lost on people, or they just use it for political gain and pretend its because of something the government did.

Same for executives, you're presumably constantly fighting back attempts to take your spot, and any perceived problem will be leveraged to try and push you aside.




In business, if you can't succeed in the current climate, you shouldn't have the job. The job is to succeed in the current climate.

Of course, it's not intended as a logical extreme. People make adjustments in their expectations based on circumstances. But ultimately, you are responsible, especially at that high level (VP of Apple). If you can't deliver the results, why should people pay you?

Government is different: A businessperson controls a business, someone governing can't control reality. But they also can't throw up their hands - again, if they can't do the job, they shouldn't take it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: