Of 100 CEOs Surveyed, 7 Admitted to being Idiots

Modi An article in today’s Economic Times, “India Inc welcomes Narendra Modi’s nomination as BJP’s prime ministerial candidate” reveals a curious detail:

The positive response to a Modi candidacy had been clearly anticipated in last week’s ET Confidence Survey of 100 leading CEOs. Almost three-fourths of those polled said they wanted Modi to be India’s next prime minister, reflecting Corporate India’s wish for a strong and decisive leader. In contrast, Rahul Gandhi got the backing of just 7%.

Those seven CEOs who prefer Raul Vinci aka Rahul Gandhi are either retarded or are CEOs because of Antonia Maino aka Sonia Gandhi’s patronage (or both.) Raul Vinci has absolutely no qualifications for even being a manager at a McDonalds restaurant, leave alone manage a huge country. People who prefer Raul over Narendrabhai Modi are the kind that cannot distinguish between chalk and cheese.

I want to know who these idiot CEOs are so that I can short their companies’ stocks.

4 thoughts on “Of 100 CEOs Surveyed, 7 Admitted to being Idiots

  1. Achintya Sharma Saturday September 14, 2013 / 8:21 am

    Hahaha! Awesome!


  2. Ajit R. Jadhav Sunday September 15, 2013 / 3:49 pm

    I see Ratan Tata in there, and I remember all my harassment by his company Tata Indicom, esp. during the BJP regime. … They were so determined, so single-minded determined at harassing me, that they didn’t even stop beyond me and at my family; they harassed my old parents, too, in the process. And, they were smart enough, even while (obviously deliberately) effecting this (actual) harassment, to keep themselves legally clean. … Smart. … Very smart, in fact. …

    Would you discount my experience (and please note, I am not talking about not an inference but an actual, direct, first-hand experience), or would you have some explanation for it? Since you obviously cannot be expected to provide the second (because you are and were not a Tata Indicom employee), and since the first is beyond doubt (or so I think), what do you propose to do with this recommendation coming from that [expletives amply deserved but never written here and thence no question arising about deleting them] Ratan Tata? And the people _he_ recommends?



    • Rex Friday September 20, 2013 / 1:07 pm

      So did Ratan Tata personally harass you, or do you think he runs each and every aspect of his company by himself? Why don’t you name the actual officials whom you dealt with, rather than taking the easy way out of blaming the CEO?

      Giant companies always have a disconnect between the values of the founder and the rank and file employees. It happens as companies grow beyond the capability of a founder to micromanage every aspect, as soon as they start delegating work. Modern India worships Narayanamurthy, but Infosys is a lousy place to work for according to many current and former employees. Blame middle management for the mess, otherwise try and name any large Indian company that has exemplary customer service.

      If things are really that bad, try to contact Tata directly and if he refuses to address your problem, then your rant is justified.


      • Ajit R. Jadhav Monday November 4, 2013 / 2:07 am

        I interacted with many, including with the then CEO of the company which I have named. This CEO in fact shared an alma mater with me. And, going by their the then Web-site description, this CEO would then report directly to Ratan Tata. (BTW, I also had mentioned all this “interaction” of mine with another Tata Group manager who would then work in the strategy group of another Tata company—someone who would sometimes visit the Tata Sons office in Fort, Mumbai, and sometimes would interact also with Ratan Tata. This gentleman had listened to me fully though abstractly, and then had said simply, as if shrugging it all off: “Internet!”, and then adding, after a short while: “I don’t deal with that” (meaning: that company in the Tata Group or the Internet-related activities). And, he didn’t seem to mind my remarks about Ratan Tata as much as you did. His outlook was as if, if he were to be pressed, he would say that he was glad that I was so honest and straight-forward with him, but without meaning it—being glad, that is. He was someone who was recruited when Ratan Tata was just looking after Nelco (ever heard of it?) and a few more companies, and JRD would still answer the succession queries either with a benign nothing, or as once I saw him doing, with a twinklingly mischievous remark: “Do you think I have become too old to be running this business?”)

        Ratan Tata was an *inheritor* of what, even at the time of his taking over, was a great fortune and an even greater legacy—but not a founder of one.

        Going by your terms, I don’t seem to be a typical modern-day Indian; I don’t have too high an opinion of Narayana Murthy either. My opinion of him is strictly going by what he has said on record, including what he singled out as the things he actually was proud of—and not restricting my attention only to the things he had said he would do once [more] successful, but didn’t quite end up doing, once he was really successful. (Once again, strictly going by what is on the usual public record such as business magazine interviews and the articles etc.) I have never met him or interacted with him, or sent emails to him. Neither have I worked with *any* company on whose board he sits or sat, let alone Infosys. I still don’t have too high an opinion of Mr. Murthy.

        Yes, I tried to contact Ratan Tata directly. What do you think would be possible, here? Would it be possible to do that? How? By leaving all the routine work and chasing only that goal? Would he publish the email ID which he would read? And, what might have happened—actually? Care to think about such things? Or did you entertain no such thought before advising me to undertake that course of action?

        … And, BTW, my first comment above was not, strictly speaking, just a rant. Don’t try to artificially downsize it, and think that you can get away doing that.

        One important part of it was a definite, and seemingly justified, but still, a *low* moral judgment, passed on someone who is not only an eminent corporate leader but someone who also is widely seen as having great morals himself, and more: someone who has been tirelessly trying to diffuse or percolate upholding of very great morals in all his companies. The way, say, his predecessor would do. That is the image.

        And *that*’s the reason why you at all responded as well as you did. The difference in the public image versus a sufficiently soberly expressed but quite low a moral evaluation. It’s this combination which irked you. (For instance, you wouldn’t take it seriously enough to reply if, for instance, I were to post a typical Internet kind of a rant here. Or, if he were not a Tata. Or, a Tata Group Chairman and CEO.)

        Let’s leave it in that form. … But, thanks for your reply anyway. (I read it only today.)




Comments are closed.