How much power does a CEO have over a public company?
The shareholders elect the board of directors who in turn appoint a CEO. The CEO is responsible for the overall running of the company. To answer your specific questions: Yes, Steve Jobs could make decisions that are harmful to the well-being of the company.  However, it's the responsibility of the board of directors to keep his decisions and behavior in check. They will remove him from his position if they feel he could be a danger to the company. If Steve Jobs [Tim Cook] were to decide to try to kill Apple, does he have the power to do so? Yes. But he would be held accountable. In addition to the other answers, the CEO is a fiduciary of the corporation. That means his/her actions must be in good faith and look out for the well-being of the company. Otherwise, he could be sued and held liable for civil damages and even criminally prosecuted for malfeasance. This is a very good question and is at the core of corporate governance.  The CEO is a very powerful figure indeed. But always remember that he heads the firm's management only. He is appointed by the board of directors and is accountable to them. The board on the other hand is accountable to the firm's shareholders and creditors. The CEO is required to disclose his ownership of the firm as well.  Ideally, you (as a shareholder) would want the board of directors to be as independent of the management as it is possible. U.S. regulations require, among other things, the board of directors to disclose any material relationship they may have with the firm's employees, ex-employees, or their families. Such disclosures can be found in annual filings of a company. If the board of directors acts independently of the management then it acts to protect the shareholder's interests over the firm management's interest and take seemingly hard decisions (like dismissing a CEO) when they become necessary to protect the franchise and shareholder wealth. Also keep note - some companies have a combined CEO/Chairman of the board role. While he/she would not be allowed to negotiate contracts or stock plans, some corporate governance analysts advocate for the separation of the roles to remove any opportunity for the CEO to unduly influence the board.  This could be the case for dysfunctional boards. However, the alternate camps will say that the combined role has no negative effect on shareholder returns.   SEC regulations require companies to disclose negotiations between the board and CEO (as well as other named executives) for contracts, employee stock plans, and related information. Sometimes reading the proxy statement to find out, for example, how many times the board meets a year, how many other boards a director serves on, and if the CEO sits on any other board (usually discouraged to serve on more than 2) will provide some insight into a well-run (or not well-run) board.
"mhoran_psprep has answered the question well about ""shorting"" e.g. making a profit if the stock price goes down. However a CEO can take out insurance (called hedging) against the stock price going down in relation to stocks they already own in some cases.    But is must be disclosed in public filings etc. This may be done for example if most of the CEO’s money is in the stock of the company and they can’t sell for tax reasons.    Normally it would only be done for part of the CEO’s holding." How is the government paid for these things? How is this handled without taxes? Are you suggesting that the people pay for all of this because they supposedly derive all the benefit while the businesses supposedly derive none from infrastructure.  Yes public roads may not be restricted by entities except in safety measures and compliance with DOT regulations. It is illegal for company A to blockade or otherwise make unavailable a public road to keep company B or the general public from using it.   These type of rules also apply to communication lines and power infrastructure and are designed to decrease duplication and ensure that selected infrastructure is appropriate for the area. "&gt; in a market, you can only gain a ""monopoly"" by giving the customers the most value  You get a monopoly by destroying your competition. Microsoft is a good example of how a company with market dominance can squeeze out competition. This isn't some old-timey problem that's fed to us in some grand conspiracy by the public schools.   If I choose not to buy from Comcast, how does that give me power over them? They're the only player in town, so everyone else pays them regardless of what I do.  I think you're just disappointed in the people who are elected. But individuals have much more power over elected officials than they do corporations." "In its basic form, a corporation is a type of 'privileged democracy'. Instead of every citizen having a vote, votes are allocated on the basis of share ownership. In the most basic form, each share you own gives you 1 vote. In most public companies, very few shareholders vote [because their vote is statistically meaningless, and they have no particular insight into what they want in their Board]. This means that often the Board is voted in by a ""plurality"" [ie: 10%-50%] of shareholders who are actually large institutions (like investment firms or pension funds which own many shares of the company). Now, what do shareholders actually ""vote on""? You vote to elect individuals to be members of the Board of Directors (""BoD""). The BoD is basically an overarching committee that theoretically steers the company in whatever way they feel best represents the shareholders (because if they do not represent the shareholders, they will get voted out at the next shareholder meeting). The Board members are typically senior individuals with experience in either that industry or a relevant one (ie: someone who was a top lawyer may sit on the BoD and be a member of some type of 'legal issues committee'). These positions typically pay some amount of money, but often they are seen as a form of high prestige for someone nearing / after retirement. It is not typically a full time job. It will typically pay far, far less than the role of CEO at the same company.  The BoD meets periodically, to discuss issues regarding the health of the company. Their responsibility is to act in the interests of the shareholders, but they themselves do not necessarily own shares in the company. Often the BoD is broken up into several committees, such as an investment committee [which reviews and approves large scale projects], a finance committee [which reviews and approves large financial decisions, such as how to get funding], an audit committee [which reviews the results of financial statements alongside the external accountants who audit them], etc. But arguably the main role of the BoD is to hire the Chief Executive Officer and possibly other high level individuals [typically referred to as the C-Suite executives, ie Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, etc.] The CEO is the Big Cheese, who then typically has authority to rule everyone below him/her. Typically there are things that the Big Cheese cannot do without approval from the board, like start huge investment projects requiring a lot of spending.  So the Shareholders own the company [and are therefore entitled to receive all the dividends from profits the company earns] and elects members of the Board of Directors, the BoD oversees the company on the Shareholders' behalf, and the CEO acts based on the wishes of the BoD which hires him/her. So how do you get to be a member of the Board, or the CEO? You become a superstar in your industry, and go through a similar process as getting any other job. You network, you make contacts, you apply, you defend yourself in interviews. The shareholders will elect a Board who acts in their interests. And the Board will hire a CEO that they feel can carry out those interests. If you hold a majority of the shares in a company, you could elect enough Board members that you could control the BoD, and you could then be guaranteed to be hired as the CEO. If you own, say, 10% of the shares you will likely be able to elect a few people to the Board, but maybe not enough to be hired by the Board as the CEO.  Short of owning a huge amount of a company, therefore, share ownership will not get you any closer to being the CEO." &gt; This isn't terrible practice. If it was, it wouldn't have been adopted by other firms.  Correction: this isn't a terrible practice for the CEO and the members of the board.  &gt; ...there isn't really much secrecy about what happens in the CEO office.  Have you worked in a mid to large sized company close to the CEO?  Almost all business dealings is kept private.  &gt; They have to make important decisions based on reports from many areas and many managers.  As does every other manager and vice-president.  &gt; The ability to make the right ones isn't an easy task.  Question for you /u/Almost_Feeding: what percentage of a mid-to-large company's success do you think is due to the CEO and his/her decisions? http://www.catalyst.org/publication/271/women-ceos-of-the-fortune-1000  There are only 40 women CEO's out of the top 1000 companies.  Looks like Virginia Rometty is viewed as a star at IBM.   And you have Ursula Burns of Xerox.    (Those are considered tech right?)  Ursula Burns is kind of completely amazing actually.  But there aren't a lot of high profile female CEO's because there aren't a lot of female CEO's period.    You can look over the list for the tech ones.    Also high profile is usually linked with something sexy and interesting to the public.   I don't know many male CEOs.  Apple, Amazon.  That's about it.   I don't even know who's in charge of google. CEOs are compensated with stocks and options on top of their salary. Most is in the form of stocks and options. You may see them with a fancy car, but they don't necessarily possess the car, house, etc. They merely control it, which is nearly as good. You may lease it, or time share it. It might be owned by the company and provided as a perk.  To earn a million, there are 4 ways: a job, self-employed, own a business, and invest. The fastest way is to own a business. The slowest way is a job or self-employed. Investing is medium. To learn more, read Rich Dad's Cashflow Quadrants. "Nope, its not legal. Easy to explain: If you know something that isn't public known (""inside"") it's called insider trading. Hard to prove (impossible), but still illegal. To clarify: If the CEO says it AND its known in public its not illegal. In any case the CEO could face consequences (at least from his company)."