In a memo published to Medium that quickly went viral, Coinbase CEO and Co-founder Brian Armstrong wrote that political discussions would no longer be permitted at his company.
"It has become common for Silicon Valley companies to engage in a wide variety of social activism, even (when it's) unrelated to what the company does, and there are certain employees who really want this in the company where they work. So why have we decided to take a different approach?" Armstrong wrote. "The reason is that while I think these efforts are well-intentioned, they have the potential to destroy a lot of value at most companies, both by being a distraction and by creating internal division."
Most employees "don't want to work in these divisive environments," he said, and would instead prefer to "work on a winning team that is united and making progress toward an important mission." (A mission that, at Coinbase, is said to be about bringing "economic freedom" to the world through cryptocurrency, but let us be real. The "important mission" here, as is the case at most for-profit companies, is to make Coinbase and its stakeholders money.) Armstrong then went on to note that Coinbase employees are no longer allowed to:
"Debate causes or political candidates internally that are unrelated to work"
"Expect the company to represent our personal beliefs externally."
"Take on activism outside of our core mission at work."
Incredibly, right-wing CEO's are a lot more prevalent than most of us thought; having worked in corporate America as a District Director and Regional Marketing Manager, I have had experience dealing with radical differences of opinion, in the old days, we simply did our best to avoid the requests into conversation no man's lands.
I remember my boss trying to lure me into conversations about the Rodney King riots in 1992 when 64 people died; the issue was boiling, everyone wanted to opine, the white folks felt it was their right to say precisely what they thought without regard for sensitivity or inherent bigotry, just like during the OJ Simpson trial in 1995 you can just imagine how volatile the work environment was, and what about the Bill Cosby hearings in June of 2017, none of these subjects were as hot or lasted as long as the four year run of Trumpism.
Trump allowed the radical right to come out of hiding and present themselves; he encouraged them to be far more mainstream and thought of as patriotic. The word patriot is now synonymous with Trump bigot in some circles; the insurrectionists called themselves patriots.
The word had been usurped by the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and other white radical groups. Imagine your boss stepping into the lunchroom loudly talking about defending the Muslim ban issued by Trump, then just imagine that your fellow employees had no idea you were Muslim, your boss defines a terrorist as a Muslim, and he is confident that they are, he is not quiet about it, in fact, he wants you all to know how he feels. He is the CEO, it is his company, and if you don't like it, you can get out. That's Trump empowerment. The shackles came off the lunatic CEOs.
There was a time that CEOs cared about what the staff thought about them; it appears that today's world might be shifting to a more extremist CEO. Think of the wedding cake baker that took his case to the supreme court because he did not want to bake a cake for a gay couple. He put himself out there, or what about the CEO of Chic Filet? Is that similar? Is that a thing? He closes his stores on Sundays because of his religious beliefs; he does not consider those that celebrate their religions on other days of the week and therefore shops on Sunday. Meanwhile, he does his store remodels and maintenance on Sundays!
CEOs have long paid the price for errant behaviors, most especially if it is a public company. I remember a CEO that was caught on camera kicking a dog while on an elevator. It took a while for him to get back on his feet; the cancel culture wanted his head, some wanted the death penalty. Remember, some wanted Michael Vick's head because he treated his dogs very poorly, was that the actual start of the cancel culture?
Perhaps it was the early cancel culture. Vick had a brand; his brand and his career were ruined; he did time in jail. Some people even thought he deserved the death penalty. Did he have a responsibility to his brand? Did his race play a part in their opinion? Does Michael Jordan have a responsibility to his brand?
Back to the story; "Centerplate CEO Des Hague was caught on video kicking a friend's dog in an elevator. "Fallen food executive Des Hague has been hired to run a frozen food company. Two years after a viral video exposing him abusing a small dog led to his resignation as CEO of top food concessionaire Centerplate. Jun 3, 2016, CNBC"
Hague noted that legendary investor Warren Buffett had been quoted as saying, "it takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it." CNBC
The CEO was summarily fired from the company; at the time, that company was trying hard to go public.
Activist CEOs are not new, but perhaps a new standard is being set by Mike Lindell of My Pillow fame.
Is he creating a new standard or a new case study for extreme/tragic CEOs?
One of the best reads for my business world has been The Harvard Business Review; it is the gold standard for understanding what happened to the great and not-so-great enterprises and the great and not-so-great CEOs.
No doubt Mike Lindell will have his own book of dos and don'ts. I watched this quirky man pitch his products; I was never tempted to buy anything from him; I have so many other decisions to make in my personal and business life; buying a pillow just is not that important. I frankly do not know where the pillows in my home actually came from.
I noticed he wore a cross around his neck, but I paid very little attention to him otherwise. I later learned that his story was rich in failure and success, tragedy and triumph, that he is a religious man, that his journey as an entrepreneur was a good story. Today I must wonder how in the world did he get so connected and committed to Donald Trump.
Most businesspeople grow up understanding three things that businesspeople must have to aspire to be successful; these are instilled in young businesspeople from a very young age. Clearly, some entrepreneurs don't follow the pedagogy of business success requirements; some find it easier to lie, cheat and steal. The three mainstays have always been character, integrity, and principles; it's what we look for in business relationships, it's what the bankers look for, it's what joint venture partners look for, it's what buyers look for when they consider selling your products in retail.
If you want to sell products to Walmart for retail sale to the public, they take a hard look at your character, integrity, and principles; in fact, your DUNS score is a measure of your business activities; The Federal government requires that all applicants for Federal grants and cooperative agreements except for individuals other than sole proprietors have a DUNS number. A universal numbering system (DUNS) number is a unique, nine-digit numerical identifier assigned to a single business entity. Dun & Bradstreet created DUNS in 1963 to identify businesses as part of its business credit reporting system. 2 DUNS numbers are complimentary for U.S. companies. Know that tracking and reporting your business behavior and that of the CEO is precisely what is used to make decisions.
The following is from CNBC.COM 6-25-2019
The top 10 most ‘connected’ CEOs on social media–and where you can follow them
CEOs want to connect with you now more than ever.
Business leaders are going digital, leveraging the access and speed social media provides to share – and scale – their voices. For its inaugural Connected Leadership report, business advisory firm Brunswick Group ranked the most connected U.S. and U.K. top executives, based on their social media presences. The firm’s study analyzed the digital profiles of 790 CEOs in the S&P 500 and FTSE 350.
Brunswick rated each CEO’s digital presence using benchmarks like activity and verification across Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn – the latter two ranking the most popular channels for CEOs.
More than 4,000 employees and 805 financial publication readers based in the U.K. and the U.S. were surveyed for the study, which published Connected scores ranging from that of Walmart CEO Doug McMillon, who took first place with a score of 828.7, to Flutter Entertainment CEO Peter Jackson in 100th place at a score of 536.
Brunswick’s methodology collected more than 100,000 data points in total, but the leaders who made the list say the reach that social media gives them goes beyond their follower count.
“Social media...provides an unfiltered forum for corporate leaders to listen to their communities and to connect by sharing their successes and challenges,” Adena Friedman, president and CEO of Nasdaq, told Brunswick Group. “Social media projects the human side of the corporate world.”
But having a presence on social media wasn’t enough to make the ranking – CEOs needed to also show engagement.
Although nearly half, 48%, of S&P 500 and FTSE 350 CEOs now have a social media presence, only one in four have posted within the past year. Less than half, 44%, of the CEOs on the ranking maintain a LinkedIn presence, and 45% of that group are active users of the platform. CNBC
A presence across the web not only proves important for connecting with customers, but it helps future employees in their job searches. The report found that the top 50 connected leaders have a 5% higher average Glassdoor rating, with their respective companies having a Glassdoor rating 3% higher than their peer set. These rating help give job applicants a better look at a company’s culture and how its CEO operates. Brunswick also found that a majority of workers surveyed check a CEO’s social media accounts before joining a new company. CNBC
The point is clear CEO social engagement matters!
Given that those three commandments matter in business, how does a guy that wears a cross to express his commitment to his religion not consider that the person he is hoisting himself upon his petard for is a complete con artist, a liar of the highest order, a cheating husband and worshiper of Hitler, how does that happen? What is it that Mike, The Pillow Guy wants us to know about himself?
How is it possible that a man that espouses the American dream and wants to sell his pillows to every sleepy-headed human around the world set out to insult half of his potential world market?
Is it even possible that he cannot see that folks will refuse to buy products from him if they are Muslim? What about those that pay their taxes and resent those that don't? What about women that opposed his supreme court choice? What about the black people, the Mexicans, the person with handicaps? Remember how Trump mocked the disabled reporter? What about those employees that were loyal to his pillow talk and his product that now think twice when they see fellow employees stealing or cheating or damaging products?
How is it possible that Mike did not think about losing customers that disagreed with his politics?
The intersection of business and politics is dangerous.
I could not help but think about all the veterans and their families after Trump called veterans losers and suckers. Some of us thought, what would Mike do….. nothing! Think about the pitchman becoming the brand! Mike Lindell "is his brand," Oprah "is her brand" or "Michael Jordan is his brand."
When you make "you" the brand, you have to take care in managing the brand; you do not have the luxury of doing crazy things like peeing in public or choking your dog in the park, you can't slap your girlfriend in public, or beat and drag her on the elevator, you can't get caught shoplifting.
"I lost 20 retailers, and it cost me 65 million dollars this year that I will not get back, ok," Lindell told Insider. His extreme CEO antics proved very costly.
"A 121-page lawsuit alleges the pillow mogul used conspiracy theories about the election to turbocharge sales for his company, using conspiratorial phrases as discount codes and placing expensive advertisements with like-minded outlets, his lies sell pillows". Insider
"Dominion's lawsuit says that the advertising strategy involves intertwining his brand and that of his company to juice sales. After hitting the jackpot with Donald Trump's endorsement for my pillow and after a million-dollar bet on Fox News ads had paid out handsome returns, Mike started marketing pillows to people who would tune in to hear Lindell tell the big lie; at Trump rallies." Insider
"Your brand has value, that value is determined by the amount of money your brand is worth, it is a reflection of the revenue it generates in the greater market, the product awareness may be driven by the brand spokesman, he or she may be the brand equity." Google.
Considering that Michael Jordan knows something about good basketball shoes, the assumption is that the more believable, the more sales, real-life testimonials are good tactics if they are credible.
People buy into the authenticity of the spokesperson. Ever notice the Tom Selleck ads that sell mortgage refinancing for seniors? Any idea why they use Tom? Reverse mortgages have an awful reputation, so why not have a man that exudes character, integrity, and principles? It does not change the fact that the reverse mortgage industry is considered dismal by some; a good salesman or pitchman makes all the difference in the world.
Remember John Schnatter? The founder and pitchman for Papa John's Pizza got fired in the wake of controversial remarks regarding the NFL's handling of the National Anthem; he stepped into politics.
Forbes detailed the latest incident involving a conference call between Papa John's executives and the marketing agency Laundry Service. In the call, Schnatter sought to downplay his earlier remarks about the NFL's protests, led by African-American players, allegedly saying that "Colonel Sanders called blacks n******" and never faced a public rebuke. NPR.org
According to Forbes, "Schnatter also reflected on his early life in Indiana, where, he said, people used to drag African-Americans from trucks until they died. According to a source familiar with the matter, he intended the remarks to convey his antipathy to racism, but multiple individuals on the call found them offensive. After learning about the incident, Laundry Service owner Casey Wasserman moved to terminate the company's contract with Papa John's." npr.org
Perhaps he is the accidental CEO, either way, he was costly to the brand though he was, in fact, the brand. African Americans now knew what he thought.
Remember Pharm Bro CEO Martin Shkreli? At the time of his indictment, Shkreli was already notorious for his actions as founder and CEO of another pharmaceutical company, Turing. In September 2015, Shkreli abruptly raised the price of a decades-old anti-parasitic drug, Daraprim, from $13.50 a pill to $750 a pill—a more than 5,000% price hike. The move transformed the young executive into the face of pharmaceutical greed and increased public pressure over skyrocketing drug prices.
After his sentencing in March 2018, Shkreli was held in a minimum-security prison. But in March of this year, Shkreli was moved to a more secure facility after The Wall Street Journal reported that he was still running Turing (now known as Phoenixus AG) from behind bars using a contraband cellphone.
Martin Shkreli Quotes
I don't mean to be presumptuous, but I liken myself to the robber barons...
Everybody's doing it...
Blame me for capitalism...
Bloomberg is an overpriced legacy software system that subsidizes a money-losing media company...
You know that being a public figure is instant grounds for the prosecution: source, Google.
Shkreli was a disaster CEO; he should have never been able to open his mouth. He was clearly not CEO material for public consumption.
I hear young people describe themselves as the CEO of their company, most of them have just themselves as the employee, they have never had to meet payroll with no money in the bank, never had to deal with natural catastrophes or public scrutiny at a high level, never had a contract that they suddenly could not perform or been held to a bad agreement that they should never have signed because they were their own lawyer, a result of not being able to hire one, they simply could not afford one. It's nice to call yourself a CEO; it's another thing to live it. Watch the examples of some of today's CEOs; pick a good one to mimic.
Ever notice that most or nearly all of the failures are men? Very few are black, of course, because there are very few, but see who they are.
Read The 15 Worst CEO's in American History
The intersection of business and politics in the public square is a dangerous place and should be handled carefully or avoided at all costs by some; we all know that, however, the Trump era pulled people like me into the public fray, I was, and I am still outraged at the suspension of character, integrity, and principles requirements from some of the business people I have known and respected. I run in circles with many CEOs, I've served on over two dozen boards, I've chaired many, I've fired a few CEOs, I've hired a few.
I am disappointed in the way some people I have done business with vigorously publicly supported Trump. What is it they wanted me to know about them? Some that were on my payroll were so feverishly Trumpian.
I am glad the Trump era as president is over; I was getting close to stepping into the no return land; I have been a center-right conservative most of my adult life. Though I am socially liberal, I am a fiscal conservative. I have been a statewide appointee of both Republicans and Democrats; I have served with the belief that good government is a right and an aspiration. I have voted Republican and Democrat; though tempted to make non-political things into personal things, I resisted it at every chance; I mostly failed. Texas Governor George W. Bush called me to Austin, the Texas capital, to discuss my upcoming appointment to the Coastal Water Authority Board; he wanted me to know that my decisions should be based entirely on what's best for the people without regard for republican or democrat, he wished to assure me he trusted my judgment and that he knew me well enough to be able to depend on that. He was right; during my 12-year term on that board, I participated in many actions, one of which was to orchestrate the termination of the longtime Executive Director/CEO he was a retired military officer, had served so long as director the place was on autopilot, he would leave around 2;00 each day, the CFO actually ran the business, I learned that the ED/CEO would instruct his staff just to ignore board member King [me]when he brings up that "minority participation" stuff, he told them it would only last two minutes, and we'll be on to something else on the agenda so just ignore him. I got my chance when he made a rather untimely decision that cost the agency a liquidated damages settlement; The ranking board that sat next to the chairman was absent from that meeting. I normally sat two positions from the board chair, that day, as fate would have it, I sat next to the board chair, I leaned into him and told him that the CEO was covering his friends at the expense of the authority, he said: "he always has".
I mentioned to the board chair Don Aviles, a Hispanic American retired Major General, that perhaps the ED/CEO's day has come and we should look for and develop a potential successor, the Board Chair agreed, he was very aware that the system was rigged for the majority only firms that did not share the pie. He asked me to Chair the Human Resource Committee and develop a succession plan. He winked at me and said do a good job. I moved quickly, appointed a committee, conducted a search, considered the ED/CEO's hand-picked choice, and instead, selected a competent, capable, qualified ED/CEO that realized that the times were different, you could not give all of the engineering contracts to all the good old boys that had them for 40 years without real competition, that charged us for damages they were responsible for, the CEO had refused to change with the times. We quickly forced him out; I celebrated his departure; it was just before we were going out to bid for a billion dollars worth of projects. It served the public good. I did as George W. Bush had admonished me to do, I made him proud, I ran into him at the convention center later that summer, he walked right up to me and said, I heard you're giving them hell over at the Coastal Water Authority Board eh big fella? To which I responded, oh, you heard about that? He said, yeah, I got several calls; you did good, keep it up, share the pie. A ED/CEO spending taxpayers' money has a responsibility to spend it with all capable, competent, qualified taxpayers.
I did not do well during the Trump era; I revealed my disdain for his character, I always did, years ago I read two of his books, I despised him then, I disliked his TV show, I've fired hundreds of people, I've never insulted a single one, I realize it was made for TV.
The lessons his dad taught him about poor renters and how to deal with them were simply awful, he talked about hiding behind the door so renters would not shoot thru the door when they came to collect rent. He was more akin to a carnival barker than a CEO. They were clearly Klan-loving racists, in my opinion; I think daddy Trump taught his son to be racist. He robbed the public with false appraisals, cheating vendors and small business people, cheating on taxes, exploiting the bankruptcy laws, and bragged about how clever he was to do so. He very clearly is an extreme CEO. Besides, if one of your closest friends is a pedophile pimp it won’t help your brand. Well, normally it would not.
In my opinion, the book was him bragging and talking about tricks he used to cheat contractors and how he used endless lawsuits to put contractors that had done work for him out of business. The Trumps were awful people that beat the system at every chance.
Speaking of Extreme CEO's consider this from The Washington PostEVERYTHING
Trump wasn't a real CEO. No wonder his White House is disorganized.
By Bert Spector 2-21-17
Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump made much of his business experience, claiming he's been "creating jobs and rebuilding neighborhoods my entire adult life."
The fact that he was from the business world rather than a career politician was something that appealed to many of his supporters.
It's easy to understand the appeal of a president as CEO. The U.S. president is indisputably the chief executive of a massive, complex, global structure known as the federal government. And if the performance of our national economy is vital to the well-being of us all, why not believe that Trump's experience running a large company equips him to effectively manage a nation?
Instead of a "fine-tuned machine," however, the opening weeks of the Trump administration have revealed a White House that's chaotic, disorganized, and anything but efficient. Examples include rushed and poorly constructed executive orders, a dysfunctional national security team, and unclear and even contradictory messages emanating from multiple administrative spokesmen, which frequently clash with the tweets of the president himself.
Well, for one thing, Trump wasn't a genuine CEO. That is, he didn't run a major public corporation with shareholders and a board of directors that could hold him to account. Instead, he was the head of a family-owned, private web of enterprises. Regardless of the title he gave himself, the position arguably ill-equipped him for the demands of the presidency.
Several years ago, I explored the distinction between public and private companies in detail when the American Bar Association invited me to write about what young corporate lawyers needed to understand how business works. Based on that research, I want to point to an important set of distinctions between public corporations and private businesses and what it all means for President Trump.
Public corporations are companies that offer their stock to pretty much anyone via organized exchanges or by some over-the-counter mechanism. To protect investors, the government created the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which imposes an obligation of transparency on public corporations that do not apply to private businesses like the Trump Organization.
The SEC, for example, requires the CEOs of public corporations to make full and public disclosures of their financial positions. Annual 10-K reports, quarterly 10-Q's, and occasional special 8-K's require disclosure of operating expenses, significant partnerships, liabilities, strategies, risks, and plans.
Additionally, an independent firm overseen by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board conducts an audit of these financial statements to ensure thoroughness and accuracy.
Finally, the CEO, along with the chief financial officer, is criminally liable for falsification or manipulation of the company's reports. Remember the 2001 Enron scandal? CEO Jeffrey Skilling was convicted of conspiracy, fraud, and insider trading and was initially sentenced to 24 years in prison.
Then there is the matter of internal governance.
The CEO of a public company is subject to an array of constraints and a varying but always substantial degree of oversight. There are boards of directors, of course, that review all major strategic decisions, among other duties. And there are separate committees that assess CEO performance and determine compensation, composed entirely of independent or outside directors without any ongoing involvement in running the business.
Whole categories of CEO decisions, including mergers and acquisitions, changes in the corporation's charter, and executive compensation packages, are subject to the opinion of shareholders and directors.
In addition, the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act requires — for now — regular nonbinding shareholder votes on the compensation packages of top executives.
And then there's this critical fact: Well-governed firms tend to outperform poorly governed ones, often dramatically. And that's because of factors like a strong board of directors, more transparency, responsiveness to shareholders, thorough and independent audits, and so forth.
None of the obligations listed above applied to Trump, who was owner, chairman, and president of the Trump Organization, a family-owned limited liability company (LLC) that has owned and run hundreds of businesses involving real estate, hotels, golf courses, private jet rentals, beauty pageants, and even bottled water.
LLCs are specifically designed to offer owners tax advantages, maximum flexibility, and financial and legal protections without either the benefits (such as access to equity capital markets) or the many obligations of a public corporation.
For example, as I noted above, a corporate CEO is required by law to allow scrutiny of the financial consequences of his or her decisions by others. As such, CEOs know the value of having a strong executive team able to serve as a sounding board and participate in key strategic decisions.
Trump, by contrast, as the head of a family business, was accountable to no one and reportedly ran his company that way. His executive team comprised his children and people who are loyal to him, and his decision-making authority was unconstrained by any internal governance mechanisms. Decisions concerning what businesses to start or exit, how much money to borrow and at what interest rates, how to market products and services, and how — or even whether — to pay suppliers or treat customers were made centrally and not subject to review.
Former vendor of Trump's "I sold Trump $100,000 worth of pianos. Then he stiffed me."
Very clearly, this poorly equips Trump to be president and accountable to lawmakers, the courts, and ultimately the voters.
Another critical aspect of the public corporation is the notion of transparency and the degree to which it enables accountability.
A lack of transparency and reluctance to engage in open disclosure characterized the formulation of Trump's immigration ban that was quickly overturned in federal court. That same tendency toward secrecy was manifest throughout the campaign, such as when he refused to disclose much about his health (besides this cursory "note") or release any of his tax returns.
While there's no law that requires a candidate to divulge either health or tax status, that lack of transparency kept potentially vital information from U.S. voters. And Trump's continuing lack of transparency as president has kept experts and advisers in the dark, leading to precisely the confusion, mixed messages, and dysfunction that have characterized these early weeks. And, of course, this can quickly lead to a continuing erosion of public trust.
Trump, it should be noted, made one stab at a public company: Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts. That was an unmitigated disaster, leading to five separate declarations of bankruptcy before finally going under, all this while other casino companies thrived. Public investors ignored all the signs in favor of the showmanship and glitz of the Trump brand and, as a result, lost millions of dollars. Trump allotted himself a huge salary and bonuses, corporate perks, and special merchandising deals.
What is especially telling about this experience is that, rather than speaking on behalf of fiduciary responsibilities for the best interests of the corporation, Trump noted, "I make great deals for myself."
There is no need to be overly naive here.
Some CEOs also operate in a highly centralized manner, expecting obedience rather than participation from direct reports. All business executives expect a shared commitment from their employees to their corporate goals and value dependability, cooperation, and loyalty from subordinates.
But the involvement of a multiplicity of voices with diverse perspectives and different backgrounds and fields of expertise improves the quality of resulting decisions. Impulsive decision-making by an individual or a small, cloistered group of followers can and often will lead to disastrous results.
Virtually every U.S. president, ranging from the great to the inconsequential and even the disastrous, has emerged from one of two groups: career politicians or generals. So why not a CEO president?
Without question, a background in politics does not guarantee an effective presidency. Abraham Lincoln, the consensus choice among historians for the best president ever, was a career politician, but so was his disastrous successor, Andrew Johnson.
Likewise, we can think of many traits of an effective corporate CEO that could serve a president well: transparency and accountability, responsiveness to internal governance, and commitment to the interest of the overall corporation over and above self-enrichment.
Sadly, that is not Trump's background. His experience overseeing an interconnected tangle of LLCs and his one disastrous term as CEO of a public corporation suggest a poor background to be chief executive of the United States. As such, "nobody knows who's in charge" may be the mantra for years to come.
- Bert Spector
Bert Spector is an associate professor of international business and strategy at the D'Amore-McKim School of Business at Northeastern University.
CEOs like stability, not conflict
Trump promised a pro-business agenda and unity.
"I've spent my entire life in business, looking at the untapped potential in projects and people all over the world," Trump said in his victory speech two years ago. "That is now what I want to do for our country."
But Sonnenfeld said executives have become "discouraged" by Trump.
"He stands for conflict — they don't like conflict. They like stability and social harmony," said Sonnenfeld, who is also founder and president of the Chief Executive Leadership Institute, a nonprofit focused on corporate governance that surveys CEOs.
Trump's leadership style is unlike that of almost any corporate executive, Sonnenfeld said. "It's like Vince McMahon became president of the United States." CNN Nov 6, 2018
I am not sure how a CEO like Mike Lindell can hitch his donkey to such a vile character and forsake his market and stain his story of success with the stain of Trump. Being an Extreme CEO is very costly.
I started this conversation by telling you that there are at least three mainstays or, let's now call them, critical attributes to a good CEO that are essentially the foundation; they are character, integrity, and principles.
Which of these would you attribute to Donald Trump?
Secondly; If you were the heir to a multi-billion dollar family business, would you hire Donald Trump or Mike Lindell to manage it?
A CEO is responsible for and to his brand; if you have a consumer product, the world is different; ask Papa John.
Extreme CEOs should be impeached for the good of the brand.
- Darryl King
An entrepreneur at the Intersection of Business and Politics