OMG, I'm going to lose some credit with some CEO's now, but hey, no cake without breaking some eggs.
YES there ARE "lesser CEO's " , lesser because they are on top of an organization which has too many "waste" and they don't see it . Why ? Because the individual CEO is unable to! He took over from his predecessor, probably had a little chat about goals , general “culture” , the weak spots , the collaborators “with an attitude” the strong spots, the “human assets” etc.But that’s what HE thinks. (and in extension is the idea which the bigger part of the management has and will defend…)
The “culture” is way more complex, where a manager (CEO being the top manager) thinks the company is X , the crowd (the operational, VALUE ADDING slice) has a perception of Y.
When the ratio between X and Y reaches 1 you’re a winner! But, CEO, did you ever thought of measuring it ? Most likely not, again because probably you won’t even consider the fact that there could be a big pile of “waste “in your organization.
Numbers are good, stakeholders are satisfied, shareholders are satisfied, sales are ok, so why bother? That’s indeed one way to see things.
But what if you could increase the net profit? Higher employee satisfaction ,higher job opportunities, lesser job-hoppers, faster decision making, more efficient decision making, employee involvement, product prices could stay stable for extended periods of time or even decrease without any problem of shareholders going MAD ?
The real “Culture“is measurable and important to any CEO who is conscious of the importance of efficient “management”…
But if a CEO wouldn’t bother, and his only concern is his own career and bonus, can’t we refer to him then as a lesser CEO ?