Komen CEO Nancy Brinker’s life among the 0.1 percent
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Thus, when you screw up at work, I presume you expect to be fired immediately, regardless of the severity of the screw up. Certainly, if Komen continues to screw up, I will cease my support. But, as with friends and family (and, hopefully, your employer), I will give Komen a pass this time. Nobody died. Nobody stole money or property here. Nobody commited a crime or even a civil violation. Komen simply made a bone headed decision, which it then reversed.
Nancy has to go. This was her job and she f***ed up. A CEO’s responsibilities: everything, especially in a startup. The CEO is responsible for the success or failure of the company. Operations, marketing, strategy, financing, creation of company culture, human resources, hiring, firing, compliance with safety regulations, sales, PR, etc.—it all falls on the CEO’s shoulders. The CEO’s duties are what she actually does, the responsibilities she doesn’t delegate. Some things can’t be delegated. Creating culture, building the senior management team, financing road shows, and, indeed, the delegation itself can be done only by the CEO. http://www.steverrobbins.com/articles/ceojob |
Anonymous
I have nothing to do with Komen, but PP is confused. Komen is criticized both for not sufficiently funding research and for defunding PP. PP does not do research, but does provide terrific services to low income women. Can't have it both ways on the research argument. Komen also does advocacy work, meaning that it advocates for more goverment research dollars on breast cancer and for useful regulatory changes. That is not research directly, but is critical. Komen's salaries are not particularly high. Check out your college/university President. I am confident he/she is making as much, if not more. Check out the CEOs of the other large charities. Are you still contributing to them. I also gather Briker did not take a salary for many years. Komen had every right to try to control the use of "for the cure" to the extent that it legally could. This is basic branding. If Komen did not, Komen would lose material opportunities to raise money for research and health care services. The choice Komen faces is to allow every disease group to copy what Komen created or to control the branding for Komen's benefit. The former results in lost opportunities for Komen (ie, less sponsorship money), while the latter results in more money for Komen programs, whether they be research or health care services. If every disease group was allowed to piggy back on Komen's branding, Komen would receive substantially less money from its sponsors. Tiger Woods would not have received as much money from Rolex, if he were also promoting a rival watch company. This is basic business sense. And, to the extent that we are concerned about breast cancer, we should hope Komen makes good business decisions. The more money it raises from whatever sources, the more money it can dedicate to research and health care services As for slapping pink on HANDGUNS, I am perfectly okay with that. I am a firm supporter of stringent gun control, and consider the NRA to be one of the worst organizations in the country. But the fact is that handguns are not illegal, and will not be made illegal anytime soon. Komen is simply trying to reach a segment of the US population. The implication of the previous P is that Komen should work only with PP and not with any group that might cater to the more conservative segments of the US. That is dead wrong. All Americans must deal with breast cancer. Komen should work with most any organization and with anybody that is interested in breast cancer. Komen should have no views on other unrelated issues. Komen supporters need not agree on other issues; they only must agree on Komen's breast cancer mission. If one couldn't support Komen because one's views differ from other Komen supporters on unrelated issues, then this country is really messed up. Komen should be a unifying force around breast cancer. Other issues can be fought and argued in other forums. All Americans, especially women, lose under the previous P's views. |
Anonymous
If you had any real knowledge of startups, you would know that startup executives make bad decisions all the time. The issue is not whether, but when and how they respond. Ask any sucessful CEOs. By any measure, Komen has been a great success. That does not mean that Komen has made no mistakes. |
Anonymous
|
If you had any real knowledge of startups, you would know that startup executives make bad decisions all the time. The issue is not whether, but when and how they respond. Ask any sucessful CEOs. By any measure, Komen has been a great success. That does not mean that Komen has made no mistakes.
Step up, tell us who you are and show us your real knowledge. |
Anonymous
|
[quote=AnonymousI have nothing to do with Komen, but PP is confused.
Komen is criticized both for not sufficiently funding research and for defunding PP. PP does not do research, but does provide terrific services to low income women. Can't have it both ways on the research argument. Komen also does advocacy work, meaning that it advocates for more goverment research dollars on breast cancer and for useful regulatory changes. That is not research directly, but is critical. Komen's salaries are not particularly high. Check out your college/university President. I am confident he/she is making as much, if not more. Check out the CEOs of the other large charities. Are you still contributing to them. I also gather Briker did not take a salary for many years. Komen had every right to try to control the use of "for the cure" to the extent that it legally could. This is basic branding. If Komen did not, Komen would lose material opportunities to raise money for research and health care services. The choice Komen faces is to allow every disease group to copy what Komen created or to control the branding for Komen's benefit. The former results in lost opportunities for Komen (ie, less sponsorship money), while the latter results in more money for Komen programs, whether they be research or health care services. If every disease group was allowed to piggy back on Komen's branding, Komen would receive substantially less money from its sponsors. Tiger Woods would not have received as much money from Rolex, if he were also promoting a rival watch company. This is basic business sense. And, to the extent that we are concerned about breast cancer, we should hope Komen makes good business decisions. The more money it raises from whatever sources, the more money it can dedicate to research and health care services As for slapping pink on HANDGUNS, I am perfectly okay with that. I am a firm supporter of stringent gun control, and consider the NRA to be one of the worst organizations in the country. But the fact is that handguns are not illegal, and will not be made illegal anytime soon. Komen is simply trying to reach a segment of the US population. The implication of the previous P is that Komen should work only with PP and not with any group that might cater to the more conservative segments of the US. That is dead wrong. All Americans must deal with breast cancer. Komen should work with most any organization and with anybody that is interested in breast cancer. Komen should have no views on other unrelated issues. Komen supporters need not agree on other issues; they only must agree on Komen's breast cancer mission. If one couldn't support Komen because one's views differ from other Komen supporters on unrelated issues, then this country is really messed up. Komen should be a unifying force around breast cancer. Other issues can be fought and argued in other forums. All Americans, especially women, lose under the previous P's views. I do check out the salaries at other charities. I do NOT give to those that pay the executives excessively and permit first-class air travel as a matter of policy. Whether or not Komen had a "right" to legally harass other similarly-minded charities working for "a cure" to cancer is immaterial. I don't APPROVE of it and won't be giving them my dollars. Komen became far too obsessed with branding for branding's sake in any case that it lost sight of its mission. Similarly, I know handguns are legal but I DON'T APPROVE OF THEM, ergo I won't support an organization that implicitly endorses their sale. I made no implication at all that SGK should work "only with PP." My complaint was they moved to cut off funding for political reasons using the flimsiest of excuses. This offended my sensibilities and I will no longer give out of principle. Millions of others clearly feel the same way I do. No one questions or challenges the right of SGK to do ANY of these things that you are defending. No one is trying to STOP them from doing these things. All we are saying is when they DO these things their actions will have INSTANT and MATERIAL consequences. That brand it worked so hard to cultivate and defend is now in tatters. The trust is gone, along with the respect. There are more worthy causes -- there have ALWAYS been more worthy causes. Only now we're committing to those other causes. |
Anonymous
I regularly (daily) work with start-ups, both for profits and nonprofits. I serve as a business advisor, director, investor, etc, depending on the situation. There is not a start-up that I know that has not made a mistake or two. Every CEO that I know will tell you that he or she, in fact, learns more from mistakes than successes. Read any business book by a business executive, and they will tell you the same thing. Komen has been a great success, though the PP decision was idiotic. But, as noted above, the mistake here did not cause death or property damage, did not involve a criminal act or a civil violation (even a minor violation). Komen made a stupid business decision and then quickly reversed it. |
Anonymous
Agree with PP. Komen is a fairly inefficient non-profit that has signaled that, in addition to being inefficient, cares more about signaling support for right-wing social issues than it does making sure that poor women have access to health care.
(http://bit.ly/w8VQnC) Message received, and no hard feelings. I hope they're successful in their new incarnation as a right-wing organization. |
Anonymous
Komen never said they spent everything on research. The money spent on education included, no doubt, making people (including low income women) aware of the need for check ups as well as advocating politicians for greater federal funding for breast cancer research and for necessary regulatory changes. One of the key ingredients of Komen's power is its network of affiliates around the country. That gives Komen great influence in DC. Ironically, Komen easily could have eliminated all grants for education, screeing and treatment, and spent everything on research. In that case, PP receives nothing, no lower income women are helped, and no advocacy work is done to increase federal funding for breast cancer research. As for whether Komen is a right wing group, that is silly. Komen has been a long time supporter of PP. Komen made a stupid decision to cater to the folks who oppose abortion, and then reversed it to cater to the folks who are pro choice. Both are political decisions in a sense. The sad part is that breast cancer has nothing to do with abortion. So, the Ps here are saying that we American women can't even get together to support a charity focused on breast cancer, because we are too caught up with our views on other issues that have nothing to do with breast cancer. Get a life!! |
Anonymous
|
I regularly (daily) work with start-ups, both for profits and nonprofits. I serve as a business advisor, director, investor, etc, depending on the situation. There is not a start-up that I know that has not made a mistake or two. Every CEO that I know will tell you that he or she, in fact, learns more from mistakes than successes. Read any business book by a business executive, and they will tell you the same thing. Komen has been a great success, though the PP decision was idiotic. But, as noted above, the mistake here did not cause death or property damage, did not involve a criminal act or a civil violation (even a minor violation). Komen made a stupid business decision and then quickly reversed it.
SKF is not a startup. SKF, like it or not, was seen as a woman's right organization. Now SKF is seen as a anti-woman's right group. People are going to support the foundation based on pro choice or pro life. I don't know in what capacity you advise and evaluate CEOs on a daily bases, but " cause death or property damage, did not involve a criminal act or a civil violation (even a minor violation)" is not the standard that most(in your case, the CEOs are held to that standard) CEO are held to. PS I am sure the board likes being hung out to dry. |
Anonymous
Remember the Aids Ride? When word got out that all the money went to the event planners, that was it. No more Aids Ride. |
Anonymous
|
Komen never said they spent everything on research.
The money spent on education included, no doubt, making people (including low income women) aware of the need for check ups as well as advocating politicians for greater federal funding for breast cancer research and for necessary regulatory changes. One of the key ingredients of Komen's power is its network of affiliates around the country. That gives Komen great influence in DC. Ironically, Komen easily could have eliminated all grants for education, screeing and treatment, and spent everything on research. In that case, PP receives nothing, no lower income women are helped, and no advocacy work is done to increase federal funding for breast cancer research. As for whether Komen is a right wing group, that is silly. Komen has been a long time supporter of PP. Komen made a stupid decision to cater to the folks who oppose abortion, and then reversed it to cater to the folks who are pro choice. Both are political decisions in a sense. The sad part is that breast cancer has nothing to do with abortion. So, the Ps here are saying that we American women can't even get together to support a charity focused on breast cancer, because we are too caught up with our views on other issues that have nothing to do with breast cancer. Get a life!! I guess the money they paid Joseph Lieberman's wife Hadassah falls under "educations"?? Keep giving them money...if they match your politics. |
Anonymous
SKF made a stupid decision, which it then reversed. And the person who appears to have been involved in the stupid decision resigned, not doubt under pressure. But you view SKF as an anti-woman's rights group, because of what? SKF has raised substantial sums for breast cancer research, awarenes, treatment, etc. Does SKF have to get involved in the abortion debate to be a women's rights group. Moreover, many women are pro life, my not being one of them. I certainly am pro choice, but I am not so narrow in what I consider to be womens' rights. The power of the SKF network is amazing and should not be overlooked. |
Anonymous
I have no idea why SKF paid Hadassah. While I am no fan of Joe or his spouse, they are not bad people for god's sake. |
Anonymous
Done now. Fractured. Over. The trust is forever compromised. Time to move on. |
Anonymous
|