Top 10 worst chief executives

Honourable Mention: Steve Ballmer - Microsoft
Shaun Nichols: Someone has to take the blame for Microsoft's recent gaffes, so why not start at the top? Under Ballmer's watch in recent years, the company's image has gone from a dangerous, calculating superpower to a bumbling giant.

While the Xbox has thrived and Office remains a cash cow, Microsoft hasn't had a lot of big wins in recent years. Internet Explorer is still losing ground to Firefox and Safari, the Zune is all but dead, the company's new online services outfit is playing catch-up to competitors and Windows Vista has become the company's most embarrassing product failure since Bob.

Iain Thomson: Ballmer has been groomed for the leadership role for years, as Bill Gates has shown more foresight than Steve Jobs in recognising that the head man has to go sometime.

Ballmer isn't higher on this list because he hasn't been chief executive long enough to justify it, but the signs aren't good. If even half the stories that come out of Microsoft are true, he's a bit of a bully not above using non-violent physical intimidation to get his way.

Ballmer is a powerful character and a forceful speaker, but he seems to display a distinct failure to accept reality. Even though Vista is about as popular as a rattlesnake in a lucky dip Ballmer insists that it will all come out right in the wash. Although it's early days, I'd be worried if I was a Microsoft employee.

Honourable Mention: Craig Barrett - Intel
Iain Thomson: What's this, I hear you say? Barrett!? Didn't he manage Intel through troubled waters and help make it the powerhouse it is today?

Barrett was very good for Intel in a number of ways but he gets a mention in my book down to one decision, which if had been followed through without resolution, could have seriously damaged the company. The decision? Itanium.

Itanium was very much Barrett's baby, we were told at Intel Developer Forums. He thought it was a great idea and did much to support it. Why that is will remain a mystery, as it was patently clear to a lot of people that the Itanium was being hugely oversold.

Companies don't mind upgrading their systems because they know it makes them more efficient. But Itanium was built to run only 64-bit software which, while the logical successor to 32-bit code, wasn't available in big quantities. Meanwhile AMD was building its own chip capable of running both types of software and it was clear that the market agreed.

Intel gave away free systems to developers in an effort to stimulate code production for Itanium, but sales remained poor and all of a sudden AMD was the hot processor manufacturer on the planet. It wasn't until Intel's 32/64 bit chip came out that Intel got back on track.

Shaun Nichols: In the same way that Steve Ballmer gets saddled with the Zune and Vista fiascos, Barrett has to take the blame for Itanium. While it was an ambitious project, Itanium was a terrible business decision.

You have to believe that at some point in the process someone advised Barrett that not supporting 32-bit code would severely limit the market for the chip.

Fortunately for Intel, the Core2 architecture was able to save the day. AMD's inability to get a quad-core chip to the market for roughly six months after Intel definitely didn't hurt matters much either.

There's also the lingering antitrust battle with AMD which threatens to further tarnish Barrett's legacy.