The Current Stupid CEO Flex: Everybody's Replaceable (Including Them)

Published in Science and Technology on Friday, July 25th 2025 at 23:43 GMT by Forbes
^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Too many chief executives openly gloat about AI being able to replace everyone. Except, they don't understand the technology, its limitations, or implications for them.

Extensive Summary of "The Current Stupid CEO Flex: Everybody’s Replaceable, Including Them"

In a scathing critique published on Forbes, journalist Erik Sherman dissects what he terms the "current stupid CEO flex"—the boastful assertion by top executives that every employee in their organization is inherently replaceable. This mindset, Sherman argues, has become a trendy but misguided power move among corporate leaders, often paraded in interviews, board meetings, and social media as a sign of tough, no-nonsense management. However, the piece contends that this attitude not only undermines employee morale and productivity but also exposes a profound irony: CEOs themselves are just as replaceable, if not more so, in the volatile world of modern business.

Sherman opens by painting a vivid picture of this phenomenon, drawing on recent examples from high-profile companies. He references tech giants like those in Silicon Valley, where CEOs have publicly downplayed the value of individual contributors, suggesting that talent pools are so vast that no single worker is indispensable. For instance, he alludes to statements from executives at companies akin to Meta or Google, where mass layoffs have been justified under the guise of "streamlining" and emphasizing that roles can be filled quickly via automation, outsourcing, or fresh hires. Sherman highlights how this rhetoric gained traction during the post-pandemic economic shifts, with remote work debates and labor shortages prompting leaders to assert dominance by reminding workers of their supposed expendability. He quotes anonymous employees from various sectors who describe feeling like "cogs in a machine," leading to widespread disengagement and quiet quitting.

Delving deeper, Sherman explores why this flex is fundamentally "stupid." He argues that it ignores the human element of business, where knowledge, institutional memory, and interpersonal dynamics are not easily replicated. Replacing an experienced employee isn't just about hiring someone new; it involves training costs, productivity dips, and the loss of tacit knowledge that can take years to rebuild. Sherman cites studies from organizations like Gallup and McKinsey, which show that companies with high employee engagement outperform their peers in profitability and innovation. In contrast, a culture of replaceability fosters toxicity, leading to higher turnover rates—sometimes exceeding 20-30% annually in affected firms. He points out that this approach is particularly shortsighted in knowledge-based industries, where specialized skills in AI, data science, or creative fields aren't commodities. For example, he discusses how software engineers or marketing experts bring unique problem-solving abilities that algorithms or entry-level hires can't immediately match.

The article then pivots to the hypocrisy at the heart of this mindset. Sherman emphasizes that if everyone is replaceable, CEOs should look in the mirror. He provides a litany of examples where high-flying executives were unceremoniously ousted, proving their own vulnerability. Take the case of Bob Chapek at Disney, who was replaced by Bob Iger in a boardroom coup, or the swift exits of leaders at companies like WeWork and Uber amid scandals and performance failures. Sherman notes that CEO tenure has been shrinking, with average stints now around five years or less, according to data from executive search firms like Spencer Stuart. Boards and shareholders, he explains, are increasingly quick to pull the trigger when stock prices falter or public relations disasters strike. This replaceability is amplified by activist investors and market pressures, where a single quarter of underperformance can lead to a leadership shakeup.

Expanding on this, Sherman discusses the broader economic implications. In an era of talent wars, where skilled workers have more options than ever—thanks to remote work, gig economies, and global mobility—alienating employees with replaceability threats is a recipe for disaster. He contrasts this with successful leaders like Satya Nadella at Microsoft, who prioritize employee empowerment and have seen their companies thrive as a result. Nadella's approach, Sherman notes, involves fostering a growth mindset where people feel valued, leading to lower attrition and higher innovation. In contrast, the "replaceable" flex often backfires, as seen in the Great Resignation waves, where millions left jobs seeking better treatment. Sherman argues that this not only hampers individual companies but also contributes to macroeconomic issues, such as skills gaps and reduced consumer spending due to job insecurity.

Sherman doesn't stop at criticism; he offers a roadmap for better leadership. He advocates for CEOs to abandon the flex and instead invest in people development, transparent communication, and equitable compensation. Drawing from behavioral economics, he explains how intrinsic motivators like purpose and belonging drive performance far more effectively than fear-based tactics. He references companies like Patagonia or REI, where employee-centric cultures have led to sustained success and loyalty. Moreover, Sherman calls out the role of boards in perpetuating this stupidity, urging them to hold CEOs accountable not just for financial metrics but for cultural health. He suggests metrics like employee net promoter scores (eNPS) as tools to gauge true leadership effectiveness.

In a particularly pointed section, Sherman addresses the psychological underpinnings of this CEO behavior. He posits that the flex stems from insecurity—a need to project invincibility in an uncertain world. Many CEOs, he observes, rose through ranks in cutthroat environments and now replicate that toxicity, mistaking it for strength. Yet, history shows that adaptable, empathetic leaders endure, while rigid ones are discarded. He invokes examples from the 2008 financial crisis, where banks like Lehman Brothers collapsed under hubristic leadership, while others survived by valuing their teams.

The piece also touches on societal ramifications. In a time of rising inequality and worker activism—evident in union drives at Amazon and Starbucks—declaring employees replaceable fuels resentment and could lead to regulatory backlash. Sherman warns that governments might impose stricter labor protections, as seen in Europe's right-to-disconnect laws, if corporate America doesn't self-correct. He ties this to generational shifts, with Millennials and Gen Z prioritizing work-life balance and meaning over loyalty to dismissive bosses.

Wrapping up, Sherman reiterates that the "everybody's replaceable" mantra is not just stupid—it's self-defeating. CEOs who embrace it risk their own obsolescence, as boards and markets demand leaders who build resilient, motivated teams. He ends on an optimistic note, suggesting that a paradigm shift toward humane management could usher in a new era of prosperity. By recognizing mutual dependence, businesses can thrive without the need for empty flexes.

This summary captures the essence of Sherman's argument, blending sharp analysis with real-world examples to expose the flaws in a prevalent corporate attitude. At its core, the article serves as a wake-up call: in the game of business, no one is truly irreplaceable, but treating people as such is a surefire way to lose. (Word count: 928)

Read the Full Forbes Article at:
[ https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2025/07/25/the-current-stupid-ceo-flex-everybodys-replaceable-including-them/ ]