Yeah, some are harder than others but I can't think of a CEO job that isn't hard. It's always fraught with political risk, changing times, etc. etc.. From the 'inside' we might think it looks easy, we get a paycheque, it's all hunky-dory ... but from that top spot it's almost always hard.
If someone said to me: "you can either work in an Amazon warehouse (either shift 7.00am-5.30pm or 5.45pm-4.15am) or be the CEO of Amazon but you're going to get paid the same whichever you choose" I know which I'd do.
Whether a job is hard or not depends on more than just how many hours you work and the physical aspect. Which of those jobs is more stressful? CEO, hands down. The decisions you make as a warehouse worker don’t matter all that much - if you make a bad one, the impact of that decision won’t be felt far. If the CEO makes a bad decision, it could lead to his removal, the failure of the company, huge financial losses, people losing their jobs. Just because something isn’t physically demanding doesn’t mean it’s not demanding.
I’m sorry, no, I believe the precarious warehouse job is many times more stressful. Especially in the US where time off is limited and health care is essentially contingent on your employers goodwill. Stress is very often a function of lack of agency.
The CEO of an Ambulance company I know has about 500 staff, he's been doing it for 25 years, it all seems like a smooth operation but they're constantly facing issues. Labour and training problems, international actors that won't pay and their governments won't help, shipping problems, supply chain problems. Liability issues. IP issues with some special things they do. Orders come in batches, they might have a down year and possibly have to play people off. And I'm not even getting into the very basics of product development, financing the working capital i.e. the regular stuff employees do.
People who think CEO's just show up and wear suits and have meetings, and kiss up to the board ... I don't think have any exposure to what the job entails.
Again, that's not hard as in big "physical or mental toll". Being a miner is hard. Being a surgeon is hard. Being a mathematician working on big problems is hard.
A CEO compared is a walk in the park. All those issues you've mentioned ("Labour and training problems, international actors that won't pay and their governments won't help, shipping problems, supply chain problems") are there in any business (even in a single person shop).
I’m sure it’s hard if you’re a normal person with human feelings and take seriously your responsibility to your employees and shareholders.
If you can avoid that, it must be a great job. Massive pay, no labor, people do what you say, and if you screw up the politics and get fired you’re still set for life.
This does not explain how CEOs such as Fiorina and Elop can inject themselves into established companies, run them into the ground, and still walk away with lavish rewards. They are in a completely different category than ordinary Workers.
Hard to get right is different than hard to do (physiologically, in the way it affects the mind and the body).
And even hard to get right matters little if you have a golden parachute (as many CEOs do). You can drive a company (or an entire sector) to the ground and still get your nice bonus.
No, there are many cases where the CEO will be involved in financial issues, especially where it will affect the company as a whole.
A European company with major cash holdings may want to diversify currency, but that could be seen as speculative.
The working capital requirements and details of the revolving loans they have from the bank. The list goes on.
True, I was mainly referring to making decisions with company money, like how much to invest in resources and development. Not managing the accounting details.
A stable company with good people will run itself. There may be execution issues, but the good people should be able to handle those.
The value-adds from a good CEO are outstanding strategy, positive corporate brand creation, and investor/shareholder relationship management.
The first two aren't hard in the bureaucratic sense, but in the creative sense. A lot of CEOs are terrible at them - see the long list of companies run into the ground by very poor decisions.
The last one is helped a lot by having the correct class background. It's nightmarishly hard for outsiders, and can be anywhere from not hard at all to equally nightmarish for insiders.
Unless your company is small, being a CEO is hard. Knowing about all projects and developments in the company (often several hundred projects and initiatives) and deciding on which opportunities to take is not an easy job.
Even when your company is small. I mean just the emotional pressure alone, you're still responsible for the well-being of however many employees you have, in addition to your own.
No wonder a lot of top level executives are psychopaths, the emotional detachment must really help.