One of the most important issues regarding what has happened to Lord Browne and related to his exit over the last few weeks/months is the importance that having separated CEO and Chairmanship roles.
The whole process of his going and now his early departure would have gone a lot less smoothly and could even have resulted very differently.
The separation of the roles, CEO and Chairmanship, is good for the company, allows each to get on with their separate roles and, in the event of an unexpected jolt, can manage without one of the parties smoothly.
Good news BP!
Onésimo Alvarez-Moro
See article:
Why ask the question now?
In two words, Jeff Chevalier. He is the BP chief executive's former gay lover whose decision to go to the Mail on Sunday with a classic "kiss and tell" story sparked Lord Browne's immediate resignation on Tuesday. In doing so, the career of arguably the most outstanding British businessman of the last half century came to an ignominious and tragic end. Lord Browne appears to have resigned not because of the relationship itself but because he lied to the High Court about the circumstances in which he met Mr Chevalier in a witness statement seeking to prevent publication of the story.
Will he be missed at BP?
Lord Browne was due to stand down anyway at the end of July after 41 years with the company, having begun as an apprentice in 1966 and then reaching the top of the greasy poll in 1995 to become one of the youngest chief executives of a FTSE100 company. Nevertheless, the manner of his departure shocked, saddened and angered many senior colleagues. Within BP, his relationship with Mr Chevalier, was quite widely known about but was regarded as an irrelevance by the board as far as Lord Browne's ability to do the job was concerned.
See full Article.
Posts
