Actually, quite the opposite. At a certain level spectacular failures improve carreer prospects. Think of hedge fund managers who ran multiple funds into a ground and every time collected even more money for the next fund "because of their experience".Quote from nazzdack:
?.....is that called the "Peter Principle"?![]()
Because in the corporate taking risks is hazardous to the career prospects, only most risk-averse people (or those with sufficient skill to attribute any failure to others) keep getting promoted. As a result, corporate executives are some of the most risk-averse people in the world. Then when promoted to CEO one suddenly has to take risk and take risk again. Given the whole career prepares futures CEOs not to take any risks, it considered that success is not a realistic target. Hence CEOs "with experience" are considered some special breed (of corporate executives who actually have taken some risks in their lives - usually with someone else's careers and money). Because of their rarity they are awarded exceptional compensation, not demanded much from and keep migrating from chairmanship to chairmanship, from boardroom to boardroom.
