I'm not sure this is good thing. After Bill left Microsoft, the board has gradually replaced pretty much every tech savvy person with investment suits. Wouldn't better arrangement be Zuke transferring voting control to new CEO as opposed to create a vacuum which will be quickly filled by likes of Carl Icans?
He's still the chairman of the Microsoft board. I read bloomberg for most of my business news and lots of op-ed contributors there stipulate that this is making it harder for Microsoft to find a replacement CEO.
A CEO isn't a dictator. They still need board support. If everyone on the board decided that Jack wasn't the guy anymore, Jack can't wave a magic wand and make them disappear. CEOs have been ousted many times.
Well, not that is more in the hands of the rest of the shareholders. He's no longer on the board and there will be new independent board members so it will be all the easier to remove him as CEO if that is the thing that the shareholders want.
> Or more specifically the CEO has to do what investors want otherwise they fire him
The board is the one that has the power to fire the CEO not shareholders.
And yes shareholders are involved in deciding the composition of the board. But unless there is some egregious governance issue or a complete breakdown in financials no one is going anywhere.
Reason is simple. Back in the day the founders – armed with majority voting power and "fuck you" money in the bank – were in charge at these companies. Now it is the standard board-approved bean counting Harvard MBA CEO who has no choice but to buckle under investor pressure or risk getting fired.
That's fair. I mean if he wants to change that he has to be in the board. But I think investors like less risky ways to make revenue (i.e. by cutting costs)
reply