I’m fascinated by the flurry of CEOs and consultants warning about the tidal wave of job losses AI will supposedly cause in short order.
Take McKinsey, for example—the consulting behemoth that played a pivotal role in fueling America’s opioid crisis. The firm predicted that by 2030, 14% of workers will be forced to change careers because of AI. That’s rich. McKinsey should be less focused on AI’s disruptions to everyday employees and more concerned about the technology exposing the limitations—and obsolescence—of high-paid management consultants like themselves. Frankly, it’s a wonder McKinsey is still in business, given its ethically challenged track record and the string of disgraced clients who followed its advice.
Then there’s Sir Martin Sorrell, the architect of the advertising industry’s financialization and consolidation. Beginning in the 1980s, Sorrell turned advertising from a creative-first industry into one dominated by spreadsheets, procurement officers, and shareholder obsession. His empire-building transformed WPP into a holding company colossus, vacuuming up legendary creative agencies (like Ogilvy and J. Walter Thompson) and folding them into an uninspired matrix of global account management.
Commenting on AI’s role in advertising, Sorrell recently declared that creativity must be “tech-enabled, efficient, and measurable”—as if advertising hadn’t already become a numbers-driven exercise in box-checking. Sure, AI can crank out what passes for creative marketing today, but I’d wager that the talent from the industry’s pre-Sorrell glory days would still run circles around the slickest algorithmically generated campaigns.
Sorrell hailed GM for pioneering a fully integrated, AI-led in-house marketing model. Tellingly, GM is reportedly using AI to fine-tune its ad strategy—but not, it seems, to build safer, more reliable vehicles. The company continues to issue a cascade of recalls, including more than 700,000 premium V8 engines worldwide that are possibly prone to failure without warning even after only a few thousand miles.
Most eye-raising of all was a recent prediction from Ford CEO Jim Farley, who told the Aspen Ideas Festival that “artificial intelligence is going to replace literally half of all white-collar workers in the U.S.” Bold take—especially from someone whose own job performance begs for algorithmic scrutiny. Farley ranked high on my list of executives who should avoid opining about AI-driven job losses, unless he was ready for AI to take a hard look at his performance.
Naturally, I couldn’t resist the temptation.
This morning, I asked ChatGPT a simple question: Can you name the top 10 CEOs you think are substandard and should be replaced? A quick disclaimer: ChatGPT learns from the data it’s fed, and it’s true that the top three executives on the list happen to be ones I’ve written critically about. But the rest? I either wouldn’t have included them or knew very little about them. A compelling case can be made for AI stepping in where corporate boards have failed—many of which are stuffed with overpaid, underperforming, or recycled CEOs overseeing their peers in an exclusive and unaccountable club.
One more disclaimer: ChatGPT often makes mistakes and its information not current. I highlighted the errors I caught, underscoring that AI still needs human oversight.
And with that, the envelopes, please…
1.
Jim Farley – CEO, Ford Motor Company
- Why: Under his leadership, Ford has become synonymous with recalls, quality issues, and production mishaps (e.g., the “Built for Recalls” era). Despite billions in taxpayer EV subsidies, Ford continues to burn cash while Farley cashes out stock.
- Bonus: His attempt to market himself as a street racer while Ford quality craters is pure PR absurdity. (I didn’t understand the “street racer” reference, but ChatGPT explained it referred to this verbatim comment Farley made on a podcast: “I love to drive Mustangs. I love to race them. I love to go on the track. I love to race other people on the track. I love to race people on the street… I’m not allowed to do that. But I do.” ChatGPT said the comment was noteworthy because “here’s the CEO of a company with a massive recall and safety crisis casually admitting he races on the street—i.e., engages in illegal and dangerous driving.“)
2.
Mary Barra – CEO, General Motors
- Why: Barra’s tenure has seen a collapse in EV strategy (Cruise robotaxi disasters, Bolt fires), rampant outsourcing (mass layoffs in engineering), and persistent quality issues. She’s masterful at corporate PR deflection but GM is a shell of its former self.
- Bonus: She once bragged about “out-executing Tesla.” Look at GM now.
3.
Scott Kirby – CEO, United Airlines
- Why: Architect of “Basic Economy,” decimated pilot experience standards, and promoted DEI over competence in safety-sensitive roles. Under Kirby, United has become a hostile brand to both passengers and employees.
- Bonus: Took a private jet to escape an operational meltdown he helped create.
4.
Andy Jassy – CEO, Amazon
- Why: Jassy lacks the vision or charisma of Jeff Bezos. Warehouse conditions remain dire, Amazon’s retail margins are shrinking, and his AWS leadership post-Bezos feels bureaucratic. He’s a caretaker CEO, not a builder.
- Bonus: Repeated layoffs, yet record executive bonuses.
5.
Jane Fraser – CEO, Citigroup
- Why: Continues the legacy of weak risk controls and bloated structure. Under her watch, Citi’s share price continues to lag peers, and the bank is plagued by regulatory scrutiny. “Restructuring” hasn’t moved the needle.
- Bonus: Still trades below book value — an embarrassment for a global bank.
6.
David Ricks – CEO, Eli Lilly
- Why: While getting media praise for cutting insulin prices, Ricks has overseen massive price hikes elsewhere and weaponized IP to squash generics. Obesity drug hype is masking predatory practices.
- Bonus: Spends more on stock buybacks than R&D, despite claims of innovation.
7.
Vivek Sankaran – Outgoing CEO, Albertsons
- Why: His merger with Kroger (still pending) is a disaster-in-waiting for consumers and workers. Under his leadership, Albertsons prioritized private equity-like financial engineering over improving stores.
- Bonus: Took a $36 million bonus while stores struggled to stay stocked during COVID. (Sankaran was replaced on May 1 by Susan Morris.)
8.
Charlie Scharf – CEO, Wells Fargo
- Why: Scharf’s tenure is a case study in timid reform. Wells Fargo remains stuck under regulatory caps, has a demoralized workforce, and continues to lag in digital innovation.
- Bonus: After years of scandal, the bank still can’t shake its criminal branding. (Wells’ regulatory restrictions were removed last month.)
9.
Pat Gelsinger – CEO, Intel
- Why: Despite promises to revive U.S. chip dominance, Gelsinger’s strategy has been scattershot and overly dependent on government subsidies. Intel continues to trail TSMC and AMD technologically.
- Bonus: Massive government handouts, limited return on taxpayer investment.
10.
Linda Yaccarino – CEO, Twitter/X
- Why: A mismatched hire for Elon Musk’s chaos-fueled empire. Her background in TV ad sales doesn’t translate to running a bleeding-edge, contentious platform. She’s more figurehead than executive.
- Bonus: Often looks like she’s cosplaying as CEO, with no real control over product, policy, or direction.
🧨 Honorable Mentions
- Bill Ready (Pinterest): A finance bro trying to run a creative community. It’s not working.
- Sundar Pichai (Google): Overengineered bureaucracy, underdelivered innovation.
- Bob Chapek (Disney, formerly): Ousted, but his legacy of alienating creatives and customers still reverberates.
- John Stankey (AT&T): Financially reckless acquisitions and customer-hating policies.