Chief executive position abuses examples
Executive summary
Chief executives have misused their authority in predictable patterns—financial fraud, personal misconduct, governance tricks, political self-dealing, and toxic management—that inflict legal, cultural and market damage; landmark episodes from RBS to FTX illustrate both the forms of abuse and the reforms they spur [1] [2] [3]. Scholars and investigators find boards sometimes act quickly but punishments are uneven, and psychological and structural drivers—impunity, concentrated power, and incompetence—help explain recurrence [4] [5] [6].
1. Financial fraud and embezzlement that collapse firms and trust
The most dramatic executive abuses involve misreporting, diversion of customer funds and balance-sheet fiction: Wirecard’s missing €1.9 billion led to the CEO’s arrest on conspiracy and fraud charges [1], and Sam Bankman‑Fried’s alleged misuse of billions in customer funds at FTX became the focal point of what Investopedia called the largest U.S. financial fraud as of 2025 [2]. Such crimes not only send leaders to prison but trigger bankruptcies, write‑downs and long-term investor distrust, pressuring regulators to demand stronger oversight [2] [1].
2. Sexual relationships, harassment and abuse within corporate hierarchies
Executives have used rank to pursue inappropriate relationships and sometimes to conceal misconduct; McDonald’s fired and later sued former CEO Steve Easterbrook over intimate relationships with employees and alleged deception about the extent of those relationships [3]. Media compilations of disgraced CEOs repeatedly highlight harassment and abuse as recurring bases for ouster and civil suits, showing how personal misconduct becomes a corporate liability and reputational catastrophe [3].
3. Governance manipulation: dual‑class voting, golden parachutes, and founder entrenchment
CEOs can weaponize corporate rules to shield themselves: Adam Neumann’s golden parachute, founder voting structures and self‑serving board dynamics at WeWork exemplify founder overreach and dual‑class voting abuse that leave public investors exposed [1] [3]. These governance maneuvers often survive until a market shock unravels them, prompting investor backlash and calls for clawbacks and stricter listing standards [1].
4. Political pandering and the use of corporate resources for influence
CEOs sometimes trade political influence for business advantage or survival, a practice that creates ethical tension and public backlash; reporting in Wired documented big tech contributions, White House fundraising and public displays of flattery tied to administration access as examples of this fraught relationship [7]. Bloomberg reporting shows CEOs now navigate an interventionist presidency by calibrating gestures to protect firms, illustrating how executive decisions about politics can be both strategic and ethically ambiguous [8].
5. Everyday abuses: bullying, micromanagement and the cultural costs
Not all harms are headline crimes; systematic bullying, intimidation, and autocratic control by CEOs poison cultures, raise turnover, and reduce innovation—patterns noted in workplace research and managerial analyses [5] [9] [6]. Harvard Business Review’s study of 38 CEO misbehavior incidents concluded boards often remove guilty CEOs but that damages to culture and performance can be long‑lasting and unevenly remedied [4].
6. Why abuses recur and what checks actually work
Abuse flourishes where power concentrates and accountability is weak; scholars point to psychological drivers of power abuse and to organizational incentives that reward risk‑taking and opacity [5] [6]. Institutional responses—independent investigations, board action, clawbacks, and regulation after scandals—have effects but are reactive: Watergate‑style reforms are possible when scandals break, yet enforcement and consistency vary by case and actor [4] [10] [11].
7. Alternatives, agendas and the limits of reporting
Different outlets emphasize different narratives—lists of “biggest scandals” focus on sensational frauds [1] [3], commentary pieces highlight systemic dynamics or political bargains [7] [8], and academic work tracks organizational consequences [4]; each perspective carries an implicit agenda, from sensational ranking to institutional reform advocacy. Reporting here is limited to the cited coverage; deeper case files, court records and whistleblower testimony would be needed to judge motive and full culpability in individual matters beyond those sources [1] [2] [3].