Originally Posted by
rickair7777
A VP by definition should have tools, and funding, to make necessary improvements, as well as innovations. And should be naturally inclined to to innovate and improve. Also needs a voice (that's heard) at budget time. Otherwise you're just a glorified middle manager.
Some companies simply appoint VP's to execute the top dog's plan, within strictly prescribed lateral limits. If they fail due to inadequate resources, they revert to their secondary function as sacrificial anodes. That way the top boy can make a blood sacrifice to the gods (BoD and wall street) to preserve his own position.
Word to wise CEO's: Don't appoint high visibility DEI picks to key executive scapegoat positions... they can be hard to fire when the time comes.
I don’t believe either of us are SWA (and know I’m not), so I’ll reserve specific judgement. But specifically to you points, “winning matters”. A movie quote comes to mind about abject failure: “
You know, in certain older civilized cultures, when men failed as entirely as you have, they would throw themselves on their swords.”
Can’t help but think of this scene every time I hear of “exceptionalism” and “failure” in the same utterance(s). Especially when those same folks start saying “a VP couldn’t have known”.
Not that I support summary execution or any of that nonsense…but if that happens to someone’s C-suite career in light of all this. Well I guess that a sounds about right.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AC9SF7TOyHQ