At least this doesn't happen with the younger members of the workforce. No 19 year olds are considering the true meaning of life or reflecting on the role of their past choices on company performance. They are thinking about sex.
Party hearty! 50 is as good a reason to celebrate as one ever gets. (I myself couldn't, because my mother was dying. And damnit, I couldn't celebrate my 60th because of Covid).
'But authenticity on an earnings call is not rewarded in markets.' Is it worth selling your soul to the company store? Welcome to the big 50. Glad you're taking it like a man.
If you found a CEO of a publicly traded company with the powers to reflect on their existential state and what truly matters in life, I'd keep 'em and promote them no matter what number their age ends with. Many CEOs are obsessed with their past, present and future achievements and have heads full of fantasies and fictional narratives of what void will be filled by the wealth and power they have obtained through backstabbing and throat cutting necessary to get the top job. If there is an outlier that achieves inner clarity I'd keep them or promote them to Chairmen in a mentoring role. Chances are if they got that clarity they'd resign.
First, I have not read the study, so Kramer may have already accounted for all the items below. However, based on your post, this study presents a correlation between CEO age ending in '9' and company's underperformance that warrants further scrutiny. Attributing declining ROA, capital expenditure, and R&D investment solely to a CEO's existential reflections seems an overly simplistic explanation of organizational performance. While the "9-ender" phenomenon might contribute to lower performance, it is unlikely to be the primary driver.
1. Correlation vs. Causation: The study demonstrates correlation, not causation. While CEOs approaching milestone birthdays may reflect on their lives, this cannot be the only reason that translates into diminished company performance. Other factors, such as market conditions, industry trends, competitive pressures, and internal organizational dynamics, likely play more significant roles. I am not sure if the study takes into account these variables.
2. Overemphasis on CEO Influence: While the CEO holds a crucial leadership position, attributing short-term performance fluctuations solely to their actions overlooks the contributions and influence of the broader leadership team and the entire workforce. A robust organization typically has systems and processes to mitigate the impact of any individual's temporary distraction or shift in priorities. It's improbable that an entire organization would underperform simply because the CEO is contemplating their legacy or meaning of life. Furthermore, boards of directors actively oversee strategic direction and would likely intervene if a CEO's actions were demonstrably harming the company.
3. Lack of Long-Term Perspective: I do not know if the study covers short-term and long-term impacts. Short-term performance dips don't necessarily indicate long-term failure. A CEO's reflections and subsequent actions approaching a milestone birthday could lead to positive long-term outcomes, such as strategic realignment or improved corporate culture.
At least this doesn't happen with the younger members of the workforce. No 19 year olds are considering the true meaning of life or reflecting on the role of their past choices on company performance. They are thinking about sex.
Source: I am a former 19 year old.
Do you know any current 19-year olds? https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/sexual-intelligence/202208/why-todays-teens-are-having-so-much-less-sex
Party hearty! 50 is as good a reason to celebrate as one ever gets. (I myself couldn't, because my mother was dying. And damnit, I couldn't celebrate my 60th because of Covid).
'But authenticity on an earnings call is not rewarded in markets.' Is it worth selling your soul to the company store? Welcome to the big 50. Glad you're taking it like a man.
Thank you, sir. I am definitely taking it like a man. Whining about everything 😂
Now you're just quoting my wife.
If you found a CEO of a publicly traded company with the powers to reflect on their existential state and what truly matters in life, I'd keep 'em and promote them no matter what number their age ends with. Many CEOs are obsessed with their past, present and future achievements and have heads full of fantasies and fictional narratives of what void will be filled by the wealth and power they have obtained through backstabbing and throat cutting necessary to get the top job. If there is an outlier that achieves inner clarity I'd keep them or promote them to Chairmen in a mentoring role. Chances are if they got that clarity they'd resign.
You got a point. See also my many posts on narcissism among executives.
How can I access these please? Do you have a collection of posts on Narcs?
No but you can go to the Archive section and search for narcissist or narcissism and you will find them
First, I have not read the study, so Kramer may have already accounted for all the items below. However, based on your post, this study presents a correlation between CEO age ending in '9' and company's underperformance that warrants further scrutiny. Attributing declining ROA, capital expenditure, and R&D investment solely to a CEO's existential reflections seems an overly simplistic explanation of organizational performance. While the "9-ender" phenomenon might contribute to lower performance, it is unlikely to be the primary driver.
1. Correlation vs. Causation: The study demonstrates correlation, not causation. While CEOs approaching milestone birthdays may reflect on their lives, this cannot be the only reason that translates into diminished company performance. Other factors, such as market conditions, industry trends, competitive pressures, and internal organizational dynamics, likely play more significant roles. I am not sure if the study takes into account these variables.
2. Overemphasis on CEO Influence: While the CEO holds a crucial leadership position, attributing short-term performance fluctuations solely to their actions overlooks the contributions and influence of the broader leadership team and the entire workforce. A robust organization typically has systems and processes to mitigate the impact of any individual's temporary distraction or shift in priorities. It's improbable that an entire organization would underperform simply because the CEO is contemplating their legacy or meaning of life. Furthermore, boards of directors actively oversee strategic direction and would likely intervene if a CEO's actions were demonstrably harming the company.
3. Lack of Long-Term Perspective: I do not know if the study covers short-term and long-term impacts. Short-term performance dips don't necessarily indicate long-term failure. A CEO's reflections and subsequent actions approaching a milestone birthday could lead to positive long-term outcomes, such as strategic realignment or improved corporate culture.