Following is a letter sent to the Editor of the Financial Times:
Sir,
The furore at BP sounds very much like a clash of personalities or grab for power between the CEO and the Chairman, Peter Sutherland ("BP's Browne confirms 2008 departure" Financial Times July 24, 2006).
It looks like John Browne, the CEO, had some of his people float the possibility that he should stay and, with the request made, he would ride back into the CEO chair as the saviour of the company. He appears to have at least one investor backing him.
Wouldn't he love it if he were asked to remain in the company, whereupon he would ride back on his white stallion to continue to save the day. It appears that he can do no wrong, and the environmental and safety hiccups that keep repeating themselves in the US don't seem to stick.
More likely, he would love to be asked to move up to the Chairman´s position which would crown his progression within the company.
Regardless of what the market may think of him, it is absurd to suggest that he is the only man for the job at BP and that there are no other candidates available, either internally or, preferably, externally, to shake things up a bit.
Whatever happens, John Browne should not move up to the Chairman´s position. When his time as CEO is up, and it should not be extended, he needs to go. There are plenty of companies around that would love to and may even need to have him as Chairman.
He is very badly advised to put his legacy in peril by this unseemly grab for power. Bad governance is on show here!
Onésimo Alvarez-Moro
See article:
BP on Tuesday moved to end a potentially damaging feud at the top of the UK oil major after that Lord Browne, its highly respected chief executive, confirmed that he would leave the company by the end of 2008.
Lord Browne said: "I will be retiring in 2008. Even if I were asked to stay beyond 2008, I would decline. I will be leaving at the end of 2008."
See full Article (paid registration required).
Posts
