I don't think we should see those things as mutually exclusive. I might combine the arguments as "CEOs should be fired for personal performance, not corporate or economic upheavals."
Stumpf left Wells Fargo over a debacle he neither created nor directly managed. Certainly, over something less visible and attributable than Cordiner at G.E. There's no particular reason to think that the new CEO is more qualified to reform incentive structures and security precautions than he is, so it was just a changing of the guard to show that something was being done.
Meanwhile someone like Ballmer was ousted about a decade after the industry had decided it was necessary. I knew college students who swore they wouldn't work at Microsoft until Ballmer left, and that was years before he finally did. Even if you feel he did a good job, it's pretty undeniable that his presence was toxic to Microsoft's reputation and ability to recruit. And yet he only left when Microsoft's problems became undeniable and 'new blood' was needed to buoy the share price.
To me, the most consistent narrative is that boards fire CEOs when a problem becomes so public that they need someone to hold responsible. That means both ignoring incompetence if things are running uneventfully, and ignoring competence (or reasonable ignorance) when a scandal comes through.
> Stumpf left Wells Fargo over a debacle he neither created nor directly managed.
Cite needed. Right now it's completely not clear, except that widespread, clearly illegal activity happenend on his watch.
I think it's ridiculous to compare Stumpf with Ballmer who simply wasn't as good as he could have been - he increased profits during his tenure, and to my knowledge, did not preside over shady activity (in contrast to Bill Gates who was happy to "knife the baby" of his competitors).
Stumpf left Wells Fargo over a debacle he neither created nor directly managed. Certainly, over something less visible and attributable than Cordiner at G.E. There's no particular reason to think that the new CEO is more qualified to reform incentive structures and security precautions than he is, so it was just a changing of the guard to show that something was being done.
Meanwhile someone like Ballmer was ousted about a decade after the industry had decided it was necessary. I knew college students who swore they wouldn't work at Microsoft until Ballmer left, and that was years before he finally did. Even if you feel he did a good job, it's pretty undeniable that his presence was toxic to Microsoft's reputation and ability to recruit. And yet he only left when Microsoft's problems became undeniable and 'new blood' was needed to buoy the share price.
To me, the most consistent narrative is that boards fire CEOs when a problem becomes so public that they need someone to hold responsible. That means both ignoring incompetence if things are running uneventfully, and ignoring competence (or reasonable ignorance) when a scandal comes through.