Jean-Pierre Garnier, GlaxoSmithKline's CEO has been due to step down in October 2007, when he turns 60 (probably one of those by-law things big companies have), but he recently managed to get his hand-picked board to keep him on for another year.Apparently, in spite of his brilliant leadership he forgot one important little detail: Succession planning. His own, that is. There is noooooooooo one who can take his job.
Apparently it hasn't hurt him that he publicly fought with shareholders about his pay and declared that he's "no Mother Teresa."
He will now stay on until May 2008, according to Glaxo, because there is noooooooooooo one in the whole wide company that can do what he does. That's how wonderful he is.Garnier claims the next two years are a very important period, with many significant filings and launches of new medicines and vaccines and that he is "proud to stay on to see key projects reach fruition."
My guess is that the dozen or so people competing for his job are not equally pleased. After all, CEO's love to believe no one else can do what they did.
Usually they are very wrong.
And Mr. Garnier has, since he became CEO in 2000 generated a share growth of about 0%. At least he beat Pfizer's Hank McKinnell who lost 45%.
4 comments:
Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:
"The graveyards are full of indespensible men."
-Charles de Gaulle
More nonsense here.
http://www.wellofwisdom.com/truisms/108/quotes-cat.html
I enjoyed this post.
In particular, I enjoyed the bottom line rating method of:
"And Mr. Garnier has, since he became CEO in 2000, generated a share growth of about 0%. At least he beat Pfizer's Hank McKinnell who lost 45%.".
Carly Fiorina was forced from the HPQ CEO position for either losing a significant % of shareholder value or for not hitting the "home run" she promised.
Or both. Take your pick. There is a long list of "under" and "non" performing CEOs. As the stock holders saw it.
The champion is Enron. "I know nothing!", in the words of Sergeant Schultz of Hogan's Hero's TV show fame.
My real question is, "Is it really more difficult to make a Drug Company profitable than to ride a bicycle?".
Does it have anything to do with leadership, political skills and having the right values for the moment?
Or is it strictly "What who you know, thinks of you?". I know technical ability and caring about working solutions for drug users mean nothing.
I would like to see some Medicare commentary at your pleasure. In particular, the Prescription Drug Plan. It is close to my heart.
I think we are all being screwed but we are going to be screwed worse shortly. Like next year. I think there is some law, or one will be passed, that drug prices are tied to oil prices.
I also enjoyed the previous post about "the dazzling blonde lawyer who defends Merck" and "it is now time to celebrate Diane P. Sullivan". I will comment on it separately.
Actually shooter you don't quite have the story right.Almost.
Everytime I hear that nonsense about Stella Liebeck (the woman who was burned,) I get burned up. She suffered horribly.
Go look it up on Google, but here is a pretty good link.
http://www.corpreform.com/corpreform/2003/10/the_truth_about.html
But what is really depressing or just angering, is the morons who have no clue as to what Stella went through, so much so that many comments there blame her (as usual, it's the victims fault) and refuse to believe the case or the fact that McD.s KNEW they were serving coffee far to hot.
The incredible meanness of a lot of our citizens is beyond belief.
Want to see some more idiots and what hey have to say?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1287038/posts
Sometimes you just have to shake your head at the willful ignorance of Americans. At least it's SOME Americans and not all of us.
Here is a more detailed description of the story.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Hi, Rose, thanks for the comments and input. Lemme tell ya, this is a tough crowd! LOL. I had most of it right, but I should have said "to the best of my recollection." I'm pretty sure you got my point, which was we shouldn't take a tiny piece of info and and automatically run to a conclusion.
When the prosecution made their opening statement in the O.J. trial, I said "fry'em," no sense wasting time on a trial. The next day when Johnnie C. made his opening statement, my head did a 180, and I said "let'em go," "why are we holding an innocent man?"
Most of the big issues today, that's what people do. They hear some imflammatory statement, put out there by people with a particular agenda, and immediately draw conclusions, to support their pre-conceived prejudices.
Both the left and the right do it. It's not right, it doesn't help, it just keeps the pot boiling so the public makes big decisions based on crap.
By the way, this little conversation illustrates my point about this site layout. I make a point on one thread, and you answered on another. Makes it tough for people to carry on a discussion.
And kudos and a "high 5, on your 300. I've got a 300M that I'm never getting rid of.
p.s. Almost forgot. Thanks for the url's. I think you may not have read the second one all the way through (freerepublic.com) The first part replays the "idiots" take on it, but the second part tells the "real story."
Post a Comment