Are all CEO’s humble dim wits, or is this just an act they are coached to put on, when questioned about crimes?

Murdoch being just the latest crooked CEO to use the old "Sergeant Shultz" act to avoid questions, lie, and attempt to soften opinions of himself.
Curtis – Nope, just the crooked ones and their shills. The very ones you love so much. Admit it.

Well, when CEOs are talking about why they’re paid thousands of times what their company’s workers are paid, they often mention that part of that salary is in recognition of the "risk" they take – after all, the buck stops there, the CEO is ultimately responsible for anything that goes wrong in the company, yada yada yada.

But oddly, all that "the buck stops here" mentality goes out the window the instant something actually DOES go wrong. Suddenly the CEOs are just innocent bystanders, victims to the corruption of their companies. Funny how that changes.

This entry was posted in ceo coach. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Are all CEO’s humble dim wits, or is this just an act they are coached to put on, when questioned about crimes?

  1. Curtis 1911 says:

    Richard Branson is a CEO.
    Al Gore is a CEO.
    Warren Buffet is a CEO.
    George Soros is a CEO.

    Now just admit you only hate Republican CEO’s.References :

  2. CAustin IV says:

    Well, when CEOs are talking about why they’re paid thousands of times what their company’s workers are paid, they often mention that part of that salary is in recognition of the "risk" they take – after all, the buck stops there, the CEO is ultimately responsible for anything that goes wrong in the company, yada yada yada.

    But oddly, all that "the buck stops here" mentality goes out the window the instant something actually DOES go wrong. Suddenly the CEOs are just innocent bystanders, victims to the corruption of their companies. Funny how that changes.References :

  3. Obama bin stupid says:

    Murdoch has 53,000 employees. He can’t spy on all of his employees to see if they are committing crimes.References :

  4. Zombie g says:

    if you say you don’t know anything… and you’re smart enough to not put anything that could cause trouble into writing…

    you’re pretty much free to get away with anything… as a ceo

    EDIT: assuming of course, your workers don’t turn on you… or they fear that you could kill them…References :

  5. RADA says:

    Got any proof??

    Do you have some secret behind the scenes info we don’t have?

    NO?

    No facts = RANT.References :

  6. newell = fragile minded douchbag says:

    No, some are arrogant dimwits, like George Soros.References :

  7. Christopher Jorden says:

    Did you become similarly upset when Julian Assange HACKED into USA secret government files?
    And then published them to the detriment of American soldiers and their allies??

    I think not.References :

  8. Prescient Monolith says:

    It almost goes without saying that corporations see themselves as "above the law" whenever someone belonging to their corporation does something illegal, they make sure and punish that person and throw them under the bus if they’re not the top dog.

    Remember that old case back in the 1800’s when an obscure supreme court assistant snuck that phrase into a pending case indicating a phantom opinion that corporations had magically attained person-hood status.

    When it comes down to most conservative CEO’s like Murdoch, the prevailing attitude has always been, all the power inherently taken by and assumed by a corporation and essentially, none of the risk or accountability that so-called "persons" are assumed to be held to as an "individual".

    Essentially, all the profit and none of the risk, amazingly the Parliament chose not to ask him under oath, but really, does anyone assume for a moment that the Murdoch twins wouldn’t have lied through their teeth anyway no matter what they might have been forced to ritualistically say..

    Honesty and accountability are what the "little" people are held to account for, the people at the top are never held to such nuanced ethics or culpability for their nefarious actions as a corporate carte blanche authority.

    There is and always has been a double-speak/double standard, I used to work for a corporation and people who had worked there for a couple of decades could virtually do anything they want, but if I did the same things (on my break no less) I’m subject to a selective application of the company regulations.

    Sure I knew the regulations and I knew I wasn’t in violation, but they had an axe to grind and forced the situation where they wanted me gone, but didn’t want to pay unemployment, so they found a lame excuse to over-magnify something legal I did on my break and make it sound like I was wasting company resources when supposedly I was supposed to not be taking any breaks, (at least that’s what the ruling seemed to imply in direct violation of OSHA workplace regulations) because that’s the only way their accusations could be used to terminate my services.

    Later I had to use the board of equalization to force the company to vacate their negative recommendation as a job reference for any future employment, I don’t know if they actually did what the board forced them to do, but to be sure, it would be hard to tell in the current job climate whether or not a bad recommendation or a saturated labor pool is to blame for a scarcity of living wage employment opportunities.References : Juxtaposition

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>