Why Eric Schmidt Left As CEO of Google?

Edsj writes "According to The New Yorker: 'Schmidt, according to associates, lost some energy and focus after losing the China decision. At the same time, Google was becoming defensive. All of their social-network efforts had faltered. Facebook had replaced them as the hot tech company, the place vital engineers wanted to work. Complaints about Google bureaucracy intensified. Governments around the world were lobbing grenades at Google over privacy, copyright, and size issues. The “don’t be evil” brand was getting tarnished, and the founders were restive. Schmidt started to think of departing. Nudged by a board-member friend and an outside adviser that he had to re-energize himself, he decided after Labor Day that he could reboot. He couldn't.'"

Comments

Good track record

[Animats]

10 years as CEO of a Fortune 500 company isn't a bad record. The average is 6.5 years. Schmidt leaves with Google much larger than when he started, profitable, and in good condition. He's done far better than the CEOs of most of the Fortune 500 in the last decade.

Re:The other side of the coin

[bmo]

Governments have the power to deprive you of your life, liberty or property...literally.

So do corporations.

C.f., the Banana Wars and the United Fruit Company, and the "privatization" of the Iraq war. Oh, and let's not forget the US railroads in the 19'th century. Among other things.

I love how you guys try to absolve corporations of their sins. The doublethink in your head must be nearly crippling.

--
BMO

Re:Not the most flattering portrayal...

[Omestes]

Efficiency often has a moral trade off. Why have 5 men do the work if it can be done by one robot? The robot will save money and be more efficient at the expense of giving 5 people work. If the company decided not to be efficient it would shortly fail to be competitive.

It would be vastly more efficient for me to shoot my neighbor and take his food, than have to go to work every day to earn my food. It would be vastly advantageous to me to run around raping women, than having to spend the time and resources to woo one in the traditional way.

These are sociopathic statements, when stated by an individual, but are valid corporate logic. It is more efficient to lay off 90% of my workforce, than to pay them a living wage. It is more advantageous to screw over 3rd world countries to sell fruit or designer water to American and Europeans, than it would be to have an ethical policy and treat people fairly.