I'm interested in why these CEOs actively damage their brand.
I appreciate your sentiment here and I'm with you.
But, I don't think any CEO is doing damage to their brand. Not really .. hear me out
The way I see it, and there is a lot of ways one could look at this, and, as someone mentioned in this thread, the CEO of the company is solely focussed on getting their shareholders happy ... as long as the shareholders are happy the company is happy to pay the CEO salary, perks, bonus etc etc
And, I think especially in the case of QF, the damage the CEO does hardly leaves a dent on the brand name ... if we look at it,
1. QF is the one of the two full service airlines in AU - the other one being REX which is relatively new to the capital cities circuit. They are by no means less that QF, but given QF's length of time in the market, most of the customers are loyal to QF. VA is not flying to a lot of destinations and so there is an natural inclination to QF for business travel. One likes it or not ... In my work, my travel team will only book us on QF flights .. not VA or JQ or REX .. they say it's because a full service airline is reliable than the low cost ones.
2. The remit of the CEO is to keep a healthy company balance sheet, good press and keep the $$ coming in - AJ is doing all this and so no one would really care what he does ...
3. re : employee grunts in Yammer - this happens in every company, every team .. show me one team where all the team members are happy with their leader/boss .. it's virtually non-existent
4. re : knowingly pursue policies that negatively impact customers - for QF removing service desks is one of the thousands of policy changes that happens over the course of the company's lifetime .. much like any other policy change there will be happy, satisfied and un-happy, unsatisfied customers ... it's just the fact of it ... I understand that there have been occasions where having a service desk would have been helpful ... but the same outcome could have been achieved by having well trained staff on the floor or have more phone lines open or do something to limit the impact of not having the service desk .. Now, given that we know of an instance where WA went into lockdown and there were not much QF ground staff could do - QF will say that they have taken into account the events of the day and that there is a lesson to be learnt .. they might go back and train more staff, BUT, it doesn't guarantee that there will not be another incident where QF will let it all loose and say, we are sorry and there is a lesson for us to take away from this incident
This cycle will go on ...
5. As long as there is a nation-wide or international issue that is causing QF to bleed shareholder's $$, no one is going to take notice and the management will keep reporting that there have been minor bumps along the road, nothing that we have not seen before or nothing that we can't handle. I suspect if many of these issues are even taken up to the level of senior management, let along AJ. And when the company is bleeding $$, the board will move to change the CEO ... And as a joke I read on "A Bit of Humour" thread goes, AJ will prepare 3 envelopes
My 2 cents
Happy to be corrected if any of what I mentioned above isn't accurate.