These two sentences jumped out at me.
Leaders should get good people under them that know their jobs and can advise the leader.
Leaders need to listen to their people AND encourage, inspire, and support their people to do the best job possible.
Leaders also take care of their part of the financial picture of the company. Obviously the higher in the leadership rank, the more of that financial part they have a hand in.
There are good leaders and bad leaders.
And that is a good summary of what I was trying to say. Just like there is Elon Musk and then there is Charlie. Charlie had things in the outer space first but look at who came out of nowhere and ahead of everyone including Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, all of them started the companies from the ground up and obviously, they don't have prestigious business management degrees from the best known schools either so a lot has to do with their own personal thinking and skills they have acquired over time as in street smart vs book smart. Steve Jobs once again is a good example. No different when I was buying my house in 2009, the first two offers were from the Prudential agent who only got the offer denied and then all the other side would do is reduce the prices and basically told me to increase the offer by atleast $100k each time. Then I switched to Redfin where they don't work for commission but a salary so 50% of the buy side commission is given back to me. This one presented my Banc of America Investments Services, Inc. Master Relationship Account(MRA) statement which is what it is known in California but as the Master Money Account in other states to show I had the money for the down payment as this was included in the paperwork when the offer acceptance response was needed and even though the offer was denied, I was going to increase the offer by $10k and she came back and said, increase it by $1k which was what I did and ofcourse that was $150k less than the reduced listing price which originally was $200k higher. Offer was accepted in less than 24 hours. I have been shopping for houses since 1986 and every time, I always find the house on my own and then tell my realtor about to see it. My personal friend in the Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas area is a realtor and later woked for RE/MAX since a year ago even back then was saying "a lot really just get paid to open car doors" since usually clients would drive there themselves and the agent just writes and presents the offer but it's obviously how they present it and the communication skills they have that matters. So basically in the quoted post, it includes multiple leaders with different levels of leadership and not just the CEO alone, and that also would define competent and caring leaders but not all leaders are that way as some can be very demanding on anyone under them and if the people under them make a small mistake, they can also kiss their job goodbye if they are strict and not forgiving. But for a holding company as in RE/MAX holdings, what can they really do since remember everything is really done by the licensees and their agents as far as businesses are concerned unless the holding company is basically able to get real estate brokerages like Compass, Coldwell Banker which was a part of Sears, Berkshire Hathaway, Keller Williams, Sotheby's, Century 21 and others to become RE/MAX. That's almost like asking MacDonald's franchises to become Burger King. While anything is possible, when was the last time you have seen it happen. This is almost like asking Hungry Jack's in Australia to use the Burger King name, this is almost impossible because Hungry Jack's in Australia is Burger King but the Burger King name cannot be used because it was already used by someone else. One other thing no one mentioned is companies have to attract investors whether public or private and that is paying dividends which is only possible when they actually generate profit and revenue. When a company is public, what you invest does not even go back to the company as you are exchanging shares and money with other public investors. When the company IPOed, the Investment Bank already bought the shares from the people inside the company and it's the Investment Banks who sell the shares to the public so the shares that were already sold to the Investment Bank when it IPOed, it can fly to the moon but the insider no longer owns those shares to profit from them. A leader does not need to run a business as remember you can have leaders for religions, nations among other things just like the U.S. President is basically the chairman and CEO of the USA as a country while in countries like England and Japan, the Queen/King has a title but it's the Prime Minister who is the real leader in the actual operations. Then there are CEO's of non-profit organizations and charities so being a CEO does not always mean it is always going to be about generating profits either. Even for a company, if the COO is doing a good job in the operations, would people even know the CEO is lazy if the CEO really does not do anything. In the U.S. and other places in the world, the higher the job, the less physical manual hard labor is done while the pay is higher. So others are right, I do not know much about Charlie other than what I read here because DISH is not a company I am investing in or have a interest of investing in so I don't use my time to put Charlie under a microscope. Ofcourse at the same time, I do not hope DISH fails either as a customer because they are the exclusive provider of Hong Kong TVB(Television Broadcast Limited)'s channels in the US as the only other options are for the same price, one channel on cable tv or on Sling. TVB does have their own streaming service now under TVB North America also for the same price but prefer DISH over Sling or their own streaming service.