How Sweet the C-Suite?

 How Sweet the C-Suite?

 

By Ajit Chaudhuri – March 2026

 

It is said that CEOs are a different breed. They are separated from the rest of us by their brilliance, their capacity for hard work, and the Gods smiling upon them, and from others in the upper echelons of management hierarchies (who are also bright, swot-worthy, and lucky) by a sense of ruthlessness that one is either born with or doesn’t have, it is not a trait that is learnt or acquired. And yet, they are humans, they make mistakes, and some of these mistakes don’t boil down to excessive pride, taking their own PR seriously, or an inability to keep a certain part of the body in their pants.

 

The article ‘Set Up Your C-Suite to Execute Your Strategy’ in the Harvard Business Review of Jan/Feb 2026 outlines one such mistake. Designing an executive team (Ex-T) is among the most consequential choices a CEO makes, because it is this team that determines resource allocation, trade-off resolutions, speed of decision-making, and pivots in the face of unforeseen challenges within the organization, and its shape needs to reflect organizational strategy for it to function effectively. And yet, many Ex-Ts are a gathering of everyone with the word ‘Chief’ in their designation, and its meetings resemble a high-school lunch table with occupants jockeying for turf while decisions drag, priorities get blurred, accountability becomes confused, and energy gets sapped.

 

Why does a roomful of brilliant individuals turn into sludge when put together, the article asks, and why does the C-suite erode into a club? Because of three myths, it says.

 

The first is the ‘status’ myth – that the ‘chief’ title equals an Ex-T seat. In fact, ‘chief inflation’ is rampant; whereas earlier one had a CEO, COO, CFO and perhaps CTO, a ‘chief’ designation is now doled out as a status marker, a recruiting perk, or a symbolic gesture, with people holding positions such as ‘chief happiness officer’, etc. Some of these roles are valuable but may not belong in an Ex-T, and an Ex-T built around fads risks confusing the fashionable with the strategically necessary.

 

Then the ‘hierarchy’ myth – that reporting to the CEO equals Ex-T membership. Reports should serve the CEO, whereas the Ex-T should serve the company, and it is reasonable for a CEO to have direct reports who are not part of the Ex-T (such as the head of investor relations, for example, and others whose role is primarily advisory).

 

Research on team effectiveness (Hackman and Oldham, et al) suggests that, as groups expand beyond 5 members, coordination costs climb and the quality of decisions drops, and that larger teams encourage the phenomenon of ‘social loafing’ (Ringelman, 1913) or the ability to hide in a large group and exert less effort.

 

And finally, the ‘capability’ myth – that more chiefs equals more competence. Adding Chief Strategy/Growth/Digital Officers may look like building muscle or adding strategic capacity, but if their mandates overlap it means turf wars, politics, and slow decisions. For example, in some companies, a CDO (D for Digital) is a genuine accelerator in integrating digital strategy across the enterprise; in others, a CDO fights with the CIO over the platforms and with the CMO over the customer data and also duplicates the CTO’s innovation strategy (I – Information; M – Marketing; T – Technology).

 

The article goes on to suggest remedies, some of which make for interesting reading. One was about ‘seams’ or the places where functions intersect to form competitive muscle (for example, the seam between product and sales enables service delivery; between the supply chain and finance drives efficiency; and between R&D and marketing accelerates innovation), where it says that good CEOs don’t assume seams will work out on their own, they design Ex-Ts to ensure that this happens.

 

But this note is not about remedies, it is about what I think about the above. So, here goes!

 

One, I agree with the main contention that a good Ex-T is necessary (but not sufficient) for a CEO to be effective, and the cost of a non-functional one is high. Having seen a few Ex-Ts in action, I can also confidently state that, while the ‘status’ myth is a reality, there is a caste-system within the Cs and many of them do not sit in an Ex-T and do not report to the CEO. It is common for some positions to report directly to the CEO but not sit in an Ex-T (such as the head of forensic accounts, or government relations, for example). Problems in an Ex-T usually boil down to unsuitable people (you will be shocked at the number of bozos, assholes – check out the book ‘The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t’ by Robert Sutton – and characterless butt-kissers in the ranks of senior leadership) getting onto the table, and to groupthink and yes-man-ship due to a CEO’s inability to delegate decision-making.

 

Two, I am uncomfortable with the Chief Strategy Officer being cited as an example of the ‘capabilities’ myth. Given the connect between the Ex-T and organizational strategy, it is critical for the latter’s custodian to have a seat at the table (and they usually do). This observation, it must be said, may be tempered by the fact that I retired as a CSO.

 

And three, for those who aspire to reaching the C-suite, there is a Russian curse that goes, ‘may you get everything that you want’.

Stoicism 101

 Stoicism 101

 

A 2-Pager by Ajit Chaudhuri: February 2026

 

 

What do you give the man who has everything?

 

My friend and schoolmate Sam solved this conundrum by gifting me a 2-week on-line course on Stoic philosophy (thanks Sam). This note is a short account of my peregrinations into Stoicism.

 

An Internet search reveals that the word ‘stoic’ depicts someone who suffers pain and difficulty without complaining. An AI overview suggests that Stoicism isn’t inherently good or bad – it has benefits like resilience, inner peace, and virtuous living; and pitfalls like emotional suppression, passivity, and detachment. It also distinguishes between the philosophy of Stoicism (using reason to accept what you can’t change) and the trait of stoicism (an unemotional coping style).

 

The course delved into the thinking of the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, who famously said ‘you have power over your mind, not outside events – realize this, and you will find strength’; Seneca the Younger who tutored the Emperor Nero and provided an ethical framework for philosophers to get politically involved; and the Greek Epictetus who had the complicated social position of being a slave with a personal connection to imperial power.

 

In the process, I was introduced to some of Stoicism’s foundational thinking. This included –

 

One – premeditato malorum or the practice of preparing for life’s disruptions by visualizing things that could go wrong and considering actions for when they did. The purpose is to build resilience because life isn’t fair and things don’t always go as planned.

 

Two – momento mori or ‘remember, thou art mortal’ and therefore don’t postpone things.

 

Three – amor fati or love your fate and ‘do not seek for things to happen the way you want; rather, wish that what happens happens the way it happens: then you will be happy” (Epictetus).

 

Four – focus on what’s in your control by steadying your nerves; controlling your emotions; practising objectivity; making a contemptuous expression; altering your perspective; living in the present moment; and looking for opportunities with the belief that ‘the impediment to action advances action, and what stands in the way becomes the way’.

 

Five – write a daily journal to prepare on the day ahead; reflect on the day gone by; premeditate on evils; and remind oneself of wisdom learnt. Incidentally, the most known Stoic work, “Meditations”, was Marcus Aurelius’ journal, written purely for his own consumption.

 

Six – find a mentor. Life is short, time for learning and creativity is limited, and valuable years will be wasted trying to gain knowledge from different sources.

 

Seven – observe the following virtues and realize that no single virtue is possible without the moderating and clarifying influences of the others because, for example, ‘courage without conduct is the virtue of a robber or a tyrant’ (Mary Renault).

Courage	Bravery, fortitude, honour, sacrifice
Justice	Fairness, service, fellowship, kindness
Temperance	Self-control, moderation, composure, balance
Wisdom	Knowledge, education, truth, self-reflection, serenity
“If you’re not humble, life will visit humbleness upon you.” (Mike Tyson)

 

Also, observe the following non-actions –

A Stoic doesn’t judge other people	“Other people’s mistakes? Leave them to their makers.” “Be tolerant with others and strict with yourself.” (Aurelius)
A Stoic doesn’t talk about his/her philosophy	“Don’t explain your philosophy. Embody it!” (Epictetus)

 

The course raised two questions. Am I a Stoic? And, would Stoicism make for a better world?

 

On the first, I find that I already practise some of it – anyone working in disaster response would prepare plans B and C with the same rigour as plan A in line with premeditato malorum; I have learnt to enjoy, and not merely accept, my fate and to find positives in the darkest of situations; and I don’t talk too much. There are aspects I wish I could practise but know I cannot – I am judgemental; I do postpone things; and I would hesitate to write an honest journal in an age where everything lands up in the public domain. There are elements I have no truck with – the virtues seem overbearing; I like that I get angry at injustices, even if my anger often stops at ranting and raving rather than doing something about it; and as for mentors, I for one am happy to learn from mistakes and believe that the term ‘guru’ is in vogue only because ‘charlatan’ is difficult to spell. And then there are things I find ridiculous, such as practising a contemptuous expression – this sounds like a 1970s guideline for Soviet visitors to a western supermarket.

 

Irrespective of the above, I felt a tone of condescension in Stoicism, of having discovered the way and shining the light for lesser mortals, that prevents me from wholeheartedly taking to it. As a proud lesser mortal, I am uncomfortable at being talked down to. There is a saying that goes, ‘mandir masjid dono mein sir jhuka ke jaata hoon; insaan se khuda na banoon, isliye thoda sa paap bhi kartaa hoon’ (by Anwar Akela, translating to ‘I bow my head while visiting temples and mosques; but, so that I don’t turn from man into God, I do a few bad things as well’).

 

The second question, to me, is more confusing. At one level, who could have issues with societal values that coincide with Stoic virtues? At another, I am unsure as to how Stoicism would address structural injustices such as those pertaining to caste and gender? Would it enable and perpetuate them with its focus on acceptance, albeit with the moderating influence of the virtues, or would it change and/or destroy them? Would Stoicism enable the Ambedkars and Mandelas to flower, or would we be stuck in a world where the ruling caste rules, the educated caste acquires knowledge, the mercantile caste rakes in the bucks, and the rest of us clean shit?