>and he guided the company to a point where certain areas became "over-invested or under-performing."
And now he's fixing it by cutting those under-performing areas.
>So, it should be him stepping down.
Why? How would that help the company get better? Do you think competent CEOs are like cogs that you can pick a new one from the stack of LinkedIn applications whenever the old one makes a mistake, and then slot him in the existing machine and everything will magically work better?
>Nobody ever said being a CEO would be easy.
Exactly. That's why you don't rush to replace the devil you know with the devil you don't.
Why don't you start your own company so you can be a model angelic CEO then? Why bother working for these "evil" guys? Or work for a local mom and pop shop instead of a publicly traded company?
I ran a business which is why I know how hard it is and why I prefer working for someone else and accepting the trade-offs. You're the delusional one here wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
And now he's fixing it by cutting those under-performing areas.
>So, it should be him stepping down.
Why? How would that help the company get better? Do you think competent CEOs are like cogs that you can pick a new one from the stack of LinkedIn applications whenever the old one makes a mistake, and then slot him in the existing machine and everything will magically work better?
>Nobody ever said being a CEO would be easy.
Exactly. That's why you don't rush to replace the devil you know with the devil you don't.