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.
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.