AIG - the best companies are always thinking CEO succession. I'm particularly impressed by the performance of Procter & Gamble and Wal-Mart in this regard. Their people buy into the unique system and culture of these organizations; by the time the CEO is ready to step down, there are several choices to ascend the throne. 'New economy' companies in the early stages of their life cycles are less prepared for this.

EJHill - I'm not suggesting that to be a successful CEO, you have to be a Steve Jobs or Larry Page. I'm also not suggesting that a CEO needs to think a decade into the future - 3 years is plenty. But you better have vision. All I'm saying is that I'm going to take a shot at the business environment 10 years from now. Sure, I'll likely be off the mark on more than one prediction. Makes for good conversation, no?

I don't have a resource for this. I look at what is critical to moving the company ahead or the current key problem within the business. For example, I'd be a pit bull for measuring "service satisfaction" or "brand image" vs. competition for a cable or a telephone company. If their reputation was poor and their call center off-shore (likely contracted out, for cost reasons), this issue might make for a very good Board debate.

Arahant: Yep. Keeping it simple is the name of the game. Amazing how many fall to complexity.

AIG - You know, it might come down to this: those of us who worked for companies with genuine, purposeful and honest missions, and saw the results in motivated people and healthy bottom lines are the proponents of meaningful missions. When I was a CEO, my mantra was employees first, customers second, shareholders third - the theory being that happy employees make happy customers and happy customers make happy shareholders. Sure, if I didnt' provide an acceptable ROI there was going to be trouble. One key to success in the corner office is managing shareholder expectations.

If it was this simple, everyone would work at the place that paid the most money. If there wasn't something more to motivate an individual to work harders, they'd underperform. Steve Jobs landed John Scully by saying, "Do you want to sell sugared water for the rest of your life (Pepsi) or change the world?" Scully tried to change the world and failed. Jobs and Woz changed the world. The money was a bonus for doing so.

You nailed it, Byan. So much to take from both of those mantra's. The first suggests the company is a no BS, straight-shooter who wants to be finanically rewarded in a "higher purpose" business. As for the second one .. hard to top that personal vision statement. Something tells me it's working for you.

Astute observation, Mendel. The Giant (Kraft) actually made an offer the shareholder could not refuse. A sad day, indeed. Although Kraft offered a senior position in New York, I knew I couldn't work for them, so I left. Best career decision I ever made. I'd be surprised if that coffee brand that enjoyed 27% of the Canadian market is more than a single digit.

My view on big vs. small: 10 Ways to Slay Goliath http://www.ceoafterlife.com/marketing/10-ways-to-slay-goliath/

For sure, it is easier for the private, than the public company. Wall Street prefers "generalists" to "specialists" because they want companies to get big at the top end. I'm convinced Starbucks is being transformed into more than coffee company because of Wall Street pressure. The strategy for big, public companies the likes of Kraft Foods is clout. They "buy" growth, not by innovating but via acquisitions - a completely different culture to what I'm talking about in the post.

This stuff may seem painfully obvious, but so many businesses struggle with complexity. Visionary leaders of the "do less, better" companies aren't shy about picking one mountain to climb and leaving the range to someone else. While the competition is negotiating the Promised Land presented by the range, the narrow-focused company is already on the summit of one.

Yep. Without the C-Suite, HR is constrained as a culture agent. Perhaps it is time to bring HR into the C-Suite. No better training for this than line management experience along the way.

You are the second person to point that out. I could have said that better. I take no issue with "buying time" to formulate a response. But when every response is "that's a good question", the respondent's sincerity comes into question.

Regardless of one's political bent, there's little doubt the fix was in on this one. Thanks for pointing it out, Jay.

How did you know the example was  an educational institution?

Good observation, Karl. When I took media training, they called this "free wheeling" - answering a question with a question or finding a delay tactic to organize/find the thought. But when it is "that's a good question" everytime, the insincerity shows.