Talk:Chief executive officer

This is not a help desk, place to contact any CEO, or a general forum.

If your discussion is about improving the page Chief executive officer, go on and post.

If it isn't, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

Any inappropriate discussions may be removed per the talk page guidelines.

Clarity

There's a lot of discussion about the quality of the article, but I think the best improvement would be to rewrite it in English, not corporate-speak. I came here to get an idea about what the duties of a CEO are, and I learned they are, in part, to "coordinate external initiatives at a high level." What? That's business-school jargon reminiscent of emails from the corporate office that say a lot, but don't communicate much. I could try to decipher it, I suppose, but I'd rather just have a clear explanation in plain English. Paul M. Parks (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

103.152.227.143 (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ma'am, Please support in below concern I m from India 132.154.9.253 (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

difference between CEO and president

Here and here are quotable sources and here and here are helpful sources. --Espoo (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the term CEO more recent than president? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Bring it on life ...CEO Tinoto kits (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Improvement project

I'm working on the improvement of this and related articles, specifically Board of directors and Chairman. Their topics are all interrelated, and involve the top-level governance of organizations. IMHO the articles are or have been pretty weak. One problem is that good sources (as opposed to numerous sources) are hard to find. Another is that relatively few editors have first-hand knowledge of these matters. I have a LOT of first-hand experience with them, mostly in small and mid-sized nonprofits. I'm being bold in my efforts, so I'm sorry if I've unintentionally stepped on anyone's toes. All suggestions, references, etc. are welcome. --Lou Sander (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Chief Executive Committee

I deleted this and a similar term, since they are not referenced, are unfamiliar to me (a person with reasonable expertise in the field), and do not appear in the references cited in the article. Their meaning seems to be something more akin to the head of a committee rather than to a single chief executive. Please discuss this further on this page before restoring these terms to the article. Lou Sander (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

UK Usage

This article is written from a US perspective. I have no issue with that, but the way it deals with the very different UK usaages for related titles is confusing. I have added a change and paragraph to show how UK charitable usage is different, but I think there needs to be some general restructuring to improve clarity. ids tehre an HR professional who could set out UK usage with greater clarity? The Yowser (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

For "Duties" I Suggest a strong Drucker and HBR slant

I'm drafting a revision to the 'Responsibilities' ("Duties") section and want to lay out my ideas here.

I believe CEOs are specifically responsible for four areas: Strategy, Culture, Budget, and the Senior Team.

Specifics (e.g., board relationships; hiring; compliance) can fit under these headings.

• For Strategy:

Peter Drucker's last unfinished work was on defining the role of the CEO. He wrote that only the CEO can "answer the key questions: 'What is our business? What should it be? What should it not be?'"

References I suggest include Drucker's 2004 Wall Street Journal article "The American CEO" (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113207479262897747.html) and the 2009 HBR article "What Only the CEO Can Do" (http://hbr.org/2009/05/what-only-the-ceo-can-do/ar/1) by A.G. Lafley, CEO of Procter & Gamble since 2000.

• For Culture, I would quote Kotter and Schein.
• For Budget, I have no ideas for specific sources yet.
• For Senior Team, I would return to Kotter and Schein.

Thoughts? Tom Cox (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

References

CEO gender statistics

I think it would be fantastic to add additional information on the gender statistics of CEO positions. Whether they are added by country or continent. It would also be helpful to see the wage gap among CEO's that are men and women and to read the ratio of men to women statistics for CEO positions. A section on how things used to be in the 1950's when women started entering the work force to now could also be useful.

Nrudisill (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

CEOs and non-profits in the US

Over the last ten years, many Executive Directors have lobbied their boards (usually a board of trustees) to have their titles changed to CEO, probably because they view it as more prestigious than the older Executive Director title. I'm not sure where to find secondary sources to back up this observation, so I will refrain from editing the article. 65.123.43.130 (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I second that vote. I NEED executive compensation 71.44.218.243 (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute - Characteristics

It's pretty self-evident. The section currently starts by making a absolute judgement call about executive pay in the US. Can't find anything neutral about the first paragraph. 128.84.124.69 (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Appears to have just been added today. The numbers appear to be imaginary, and the rest is just commentary. I've removed it. Kuru (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Need historical background

When did the title CEO first start being used? WHat is the history behind this term? 144.171.138.171 (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. No support was expressed, and Shadow007 pointed out a distinction that seems to hold merit. Although I don't see it clearly expressed in MOS:JOBTITLES/WP:NCCAPS, the description by Shadow007 seems consistent with the titling of several other articles on Wikipedia about formal titles for non-specific entities, such as grand prince, lord mayor, grand duke, and prince regent. It may be that if we had such an article, "Chief Executive Officer of IBM" should use title case, but "chief executive officer" as a title by itself (without an identified specific organization) should not. It may be desirable to try to clarify MOS:JOBTITLES on this point. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

---

• Chief executive officer → Chief Executive Officer
• Chief financial officer → Chief Financial Officer
• Chief operating officer → Chief Operating Officer

– Uppercase per MOS:JOBTITLES – "Chief Executive Officer" is a formal title, and here it "is addressed as a title or position in and of itself". —BarrelProof (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Is not supported by MOS:JOBTITLES. The part quoted is referring to specific offices (President of the United States; King of France and Navarre) whereas the subject article deals with the position of chief executive officer generically rather than by reference to a specific position within a specific organisation. Shadow007 (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment It all depends on whether Chief Executive Officer is considered to be a "formal title" or not. I tend to think it should be, but it's not quite as "formal" as King of France, etc. Lou Sander (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose It is not supported by WP:NCCAPS. David (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Characteristics section is badly named and should be split into different sections

Characteristics is a weird name for that section. I'm splitting into two sections, Statistics and Famous CEOs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.113.225 (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Which means that the statistics that are in the lead have been in the article for long time (I didn't go back and check, but at least since some time before the split by 76.71.113.225. Sjö (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of CEO Gender statistics

The added gender "statistic" in the introduction of the wiki is completely out of place. There is no valid reason as to why there would be a reference to the number of females CEOs at Fortune 500 companies. This wiki is strictly about what a chief executive officer is, does, encompass and what their roles are. I see the addition of this sentence more as a political statement rather than a productive/informational one. Even if the statistic was meant to be informative, it would still be inappropriate considering that it referenced solely the Fortune 500 companies, which is far from representative of reality, but also because this wiki has nothing to do with statistics especially considering that nothing in this wiki suggests that it is talking about a collective of CEOs rather than a generic take on the role of a CEO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.5.133 (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Seems perfectly reasonable to me - its highly relevant -----Snowded ^TALK 18:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It's totally irrelevant, as the IP says. Why single out 'gender' as opposed to any one of a hundred other characteristics? It would be far more relevant to reference academic qualifications. This modern virtue-signalling obsession with 'gender' should have no place in an encyclopaedia. 31.52.166.58 (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

"It would be far more relevant to reference academic qualifications" What does that have to do with the old boy network which typically promotes the CEOs? Dimadick (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

So are people actually going to give a solid counterargument or what? At what point are these ridiculously irrelevant statistics going to be removed from the wiki? 78.17.25.63 (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't think of a solid counter-argument for including it in an encyclopedia. It's the sort of stuff you often see in newspapers, and let's face it - it's POV. To include such a selective statistic is in effect saying 'how bad is it that 'only' such-and-such a percent of whatever occupation you care to mention, are women'. And where does it end? Why not detail the percentage of homosexual CEOs, or non-white CEOs, or anything else? And what about this one: Waste_collector. I've never yet seen a female bin collector. There's a sickening lack of women doing that job, but I don't see a mad scramble to document the percentages here or anywhere else. 78 - I suggest you wait a couple more days to see what anyone else might have to say about it, and then, in the absence of solid counter-arguments, remove the material. 31.52.166.58 (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Souced material relating to ethnic or other diversity is obviously relevant. Academic qualifications as well - the absence of data does not justify removing material. We also have a couple of largely single purpose recently created Its here. That doesn't constitute consensus for change. If you really feel strongly raise an RfC and post notices on relevant boards -----Snowded ^TALK 11:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. It's not relevant in the context of this article. Including the statistic is bringing the article, and to a certain extent Wikipedia itself, down to the level of the Guardian or the BBC, where there's an unhealthy obsession with political correctness. 31.52.166.58 (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Well that makes your position clear - Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, The fact that people like the BBC regard such things as important is a reliable source for inclusion -----Snowded ^TALK 11:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

It does. I'm against the stats being included, so that's my !vote. If we can get consensus here there will be no need for an RfC or notice board postings. 31.52.166.58 (talk) 11:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

You don't get consensus with a couple of SPAs I'm afraid and we don't vote we follow guidelines and there reliable sources count more than your political opinions -----Snowded ^TALK 12:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

A couple of things - who are the two SPAs? I can only see one possibility, and it isn't me. Secondly, the current source is a blog with a clear political agenda, so at the very least a reputable source needs to be found. Regardless, the issue is one of context, not especially sourcing. BTW, I said 'not-vote' (!vote) and not 'vote'. 31.52.166.58 (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Two at 78 and you've only been editing for a couple of days on a very limited range of articles, but you seem familiar with aspects of wikipedia - have you ever edited before? -----Snowded ^TALK 12:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I've been editing since 2004. Thousands of edits and almost 100 articles created. I put my user account into cold storage about 18 months ago to experiment as an IP editor, primarily to understand the difficulties this class of editor encounters. Here are my last two IPs: User:31.52.166.114, User:31.52.165.201. Anyway, let's see what other opinions, if any, we obtain. 31.52.166.58 (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Then you need to provide full links on the talk pages of the accounts and a link to the user account. -----Snowded ^TALK 20:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's no policy stating that. And I'm certainly not going to link these IPs, or any others, to my user account. When I resume editing from the account (in the not too distant future) I will no longer be an "IP". 31.52.166.58 (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Editing with multiple accounts is problematic - you at least need to declare this to an admin -----Snowded ^TALK 18:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Just out of pure curiosity: Snowded, you said that given a valid source of information, the data should remain on the article. Let's say hypothetically that there was some obscure study which ended up concluding that white CEOs tend to perform better as CEOs compared to their other-ethnic counterparts. Should this hypothetical article also be included in this article? What about any other study or piece of data that made a conclusion which in today's political climate would be seen as "right-wing"? Because to me it seems like there are a lot of wikipedia users out there who have a left-leaning political agenda when it comes to making edits. I just checked your account and all the checkboxes for being a left-leaning individual are ticked. Nothing wrong with that by the way, I'm just making an observation. 78.17.25.63 (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The statistic mentioned is well sourced, and Wikipedia is a collection of sourced information. If information is found which contradicts this then this should be added as well, even if this is contrary to the views of the reader. The reader can then read the assembled information and take a view. We must be sure that the presence, location and style of information does not give undue weight. (See WP:UNDUE). In this case, I think that having the information in the lede could be considered undue weight, but to remove the information entirely would be at odds with the majority view. A separate heading may be more appropriate, and more than two sentences might be useful. AJ2265 (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

If you have well sourced material that relates to aspects of CEO performance then we can look at it. -----Snowded ^TALK 18:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe the statistic should remain, as it is a valid sourced statistic about CEOs. There are many other statistics that could be added, such as race. David (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Here are my arguments against inclusion of the statistic:

• The statistic is from a source that cannot be regarded as reputable (WP:RS). It is derived from a pressure group blog. Regardless of the overall argument as to the presence or otherwise of the statistic, the content should be removed purely on this basis.

• The figure is only for S&P 500 companies. There are many other listings and indexes that will have different compositions. Why single out this one? It isn't even representative on a worldwide basis.

• The figure is a snapshot, and as such requires constant updating, or placed in an historical context. Updating is not likely to occur on an article such as this. Consequently, there is a danger that readers will go away with inaccurate information.

• Crucially, the number or percentage of women fulfilling the role of CEO is not an attribute of the role of CEO. It is an attribute of such things as industry sector, size of organisation and so on. The figure is only obliquely relevant to this article, if at all.

• Sex is only one characteristic that could be mentioned (I don't need to list them here). Why single it out?

• The statement that includes the statistic is implicitly political. In effect, it is mentioning the statistic to draw attention to what some perceive as a problem. Again, that is not the purpose of the article, nor of Wikipedia as a whole. Statistics such as this should be in an article about gender roles, where it can be viewed in the correct context and (sourced) explanations given for perceived disparities or problematic situations. Such material would be wholly inappropriate in the current article.

For these reasons I propose the statistic should be removed. 31.52.166.58 (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The source is reporting facts and as such it is reliable - its not an opinion. S&P 500 is significant, happy to add more. We can add a date to the reference - that is very common on wikipedia. CEOs are leaders so gender balancece is highly relevant. We can of course add other roles, ethnic background etc. -----Snowded ^TALK 21:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

If The Sun reports a 'fact' is it reliable? 31.52.166.58 (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring important points that IP is making?

• Like IP said, this is implicitly political. You and I both know that.
• S&P is not representative at all. Sweden for example have a 15% female CEO rate, India 12.9% and Germany 4%. Averaged out, the statistics comes to 10% of CEOs world wide are female.
• This statistic has nothing to do with the article at all. It does not have anything to do with the role as a CEO.
• It is a snapshot. The actual number as of now is 25, not 26. This requires continual updating of the wiki even though the likelihood of that happening is slim.

I also want to add some more points myself:

• Listing this statistic reads like it is out of place. It is a sentence that comes out of nowhere to the reader. So formatting is definitely a factor to consider.
• Putting this statistic in this wiki is one thing, but it is another thing to not give the statistic context. We all love new information, but without context, information is almost always useless but most importantly misleading. There will undoubtedly be a faction of visitors who will interpret this piece of data as somehow sexist without being given sufficient context. Of course the very fact that there are 25 female CEOs in S&P goes to show that women are not held back from achieving such a position in any way shape or form by anyone other than themselves and/or biology.
• Following on from the point above: The mere mention of this statistic implies that there is a relevance to it. As if it is a problem of some sort that 5% of S&P CEOs are female. It is not an issue or a problem.
• I noticed you, Snowded, mentioned being more than happy to add ethnic statistics to the wiki. Again, this is so clearly political. Why not make a mention of the individual's height? Weight? Hair colour? Eye colour? There are an abundance of factors that you can choose from, yet you pick gender and ethnicity. Awfully suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.17.25.63 (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Here's a summary of the points made to support inclusion of the statistic:

"Seems perfectly reasonable to me - its highly relevant"

"Sourced material relating to ethnic or other diversity is obviously relevant....."

"The statistic mentioned is well sourced ....."

"I believe the statistic should remain, as it is a valid sourced statistic about CEOs. There are many other statistics that could be added, such as race."

There's much emphasis on sourcing here. However, other than this peripheral point, which I raised as a minor issue, no one has answered the fundamental questions raised by myself and 78. These questions relate to relevance of the stat in this article, as opposed to its relevance elsewhere: no one has addressed these issues. I maintain that the inclusion of this stat is singularly inappropriate, because as I mentioned above, it is not an attribute of the CEO role; the subject of this article. There are many issues associated with the inclusion of this stat, not least of which might be described as 'thin end of the wedge' stuff. Where does it stop? I have, as it happens, found a first class source detailing the number of gay CEOs in F500 companies. The point is, people are appointed to these positions on merit, not on sex or race or anything else, so to include stats on non-merit-related attributes is irrelevant in an article about the role itself - put such stuff in articles like Women in the workforce - if it's not already there, but don't put it here. Have a look at this article: Film director. The lack of women directors is often complained about, but quite rightly there's no mention of it in the article. If you want the information you can go here: Women in film. If you have any counter arguments to the specific points noted in the above bulleted lists, please add them. 31.52.166.58 (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

You appear to be on a mission. In respect of your comments above sexual orientation and ethnic origin might also be appropriate. It's very common to provide such data on articles of this nature as roles like these are part of wider society issues... Two IPs (one an SPA) on a mission is not enough to overturn material such of this and several editors have now expressed an opinion. If you want to keep going then raise an RfC -----Snowded ^TALK 18:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I will not debate with you further on this matter. See WP:NPA and Ad hominem. 31.52.166.58 (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of new sections on Executive compensation and diversity

A somewhat arbitrary removal by an IP without an explanation; I can't see any reason for removal and in effect two editors (with more than 6 days edit history) support those changes. So unless there is some reasonably argument and wider support for the removal I'll reinstate it tomorrow unless someone else does it first -----Snowded ^TALK 19:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Artificial intelligence

Perhaps an artificial intelligence section can be integrated to the article (after adding more sources and info) ?

According to Jack Ma, an AI CEO is still 30 years away (so available by 2047). It has been mentioned that all necessary mathematical solutions and logical apparatus for creating such a machine already exist. However, we currently still lack some of the key technologies needed for creating the complete intelligent machine. Also, the already available separate technologies have not yet been combined to produce a finished product.

Personally, I don't really think it's actually going to replace human CEO's (by 2047) completely, but rather simply "assist" humans in the decision-making process in corporations. So, at least one admin, and perhaps additional people (or a board) would then make decisions together with the AI. This seems logical, since AI is already being used by companies in some degree. I can't find sufficient sources to improve the section though, so it needs to improved by someone else first (befor inclusion to article). Genetics4good (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

References

History of CEO

I am disappointed to find there is no history section in this article. Who was the first CEO? When and where was the term first used? When did it become commonplace for businesses to have CEOs? These are questions that the article should answer. 1.136.108.137 (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Managing Director

The term managing director redirects to CEO without explaining that the two titles are not synonyms.

In the two tier system managing director would be the same as a CEO, but the title managing director is not used as such. But companies with a one tier system, have board of directors that combine executive directors and non executive directors. In that case managing director would have the duties comparable to a CEO, but would also always have a seat and vote on the board of directors. So I would say that the difference between a managing director and a CEO would be, that managing director always implies a seat on the board of directors, a significant difference.Jochum (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Chief people and culture officer?

we have a red link to Chief people and culture officer (CPCO). Is it a definable concept? If not, then the redirect should be done or red links to be unlinked Estopedist1 (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 10:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Chief executive officer → CEO – CEO is WP:COMMONNAME more then Chief Executive Officer as per Google Ngram Viewer ... Roma enjoyer (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Regardless of WP:COMMONNAME, the guidelines on WP:NC#Avoid ambiguous abbreviations and MOS:ACROTITLE state that acronyms should only be used in article titles if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject. Is this the case, given the existence of the several listings on CEO (disambiguation)? Otherwise, I cannot fully support the RM. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, the current primary redirect works fine. 162 etc. (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - As those above have said, simply because CEO may be the most common name does not make it the most appropriate title, as CEO could refer to any number of other things. Would also suggest/support snow/speedy close assuming comments after mine lead to that conclusion (which I presume they will). Estar8806 (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per NASA, USB and other similar titles Red Slash 04:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The term "CEO" as become ubiquitous and far more common than the fully spelled out term. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Best not to use abbreviations unless they are pretty much exclusively used (e.g. we use Royal Air Force and not RAF, despite the latter being far more common in everyday speech). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, the status quo is fine as it is. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 09:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CTO?

In this article there is not a single mention of CTO (Chief Technology Officer). 90.146.107.73 (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)