No board is going to say “we think the CEO is a bit crap, but we’re going to stick with them for now and see how it goes.”

▲

unsupp0rted a day ago | parent | next [-]

There are ways to say this without saying it

	▲	kbenson a day ago \| parent [-]
		But are there reasons for them to say it? They don't say it because there's no benefit to the company by saying it, either outright or implicit.

▲

sailfast a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

“His moral failings are secondary to their commercial successes and clear delivery of shareholder value”

▲

ako a day ago | parent [-]

Did you expect anything else in a country that choose trump as their president?

▲

a day ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

sailfast a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The original post was about it being difficult to say they don't mind the ethical problems because the executive is important to the company. I was suggesting example phrasing. This has nothing to do with politics - it has always been the case, and always will be.

▲

bobanrocky a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Oh, c’mon. I’m not condoning anything that’s happening here, but CEOs having affairs is hardly unique to the US or a US government or trump.

	▲	ako a day ago \| parent [-]
		That's not what i referred to, it's the fact that society thinks it's ok: “His moral failings are secondary to their commercial successes and clear delivery of shareholder value”. It's a society where christians think Trump is a morally acceptable choice.

▲

sandworm101 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

What about a board that says: "We think the CEO is a bit crap, but due to how the business is structured we have no actual power over him"? cough meta.