Some of the wisest advice I was ever given was, "Don't grumble about your employer if you are going to cash your paycheck." It allowed me to clearly see:
1) what price I was putting on my happiness
2) whether I was working someplace where I could still make a difference

Bob;

It's either the assistant is related in some way to the CEO that the writer isn't aware of, or that someone the assistant is related to has something over the CEO's head, or it's a non-professional relationship.

This happens when the manager(s) to the manager don't care about their performance - it's not just the CEO's that exhibit this trait, I've even seen this with first line managers.

BOB, RE: "Desparate" & BAD CEO...
I was surprised that you even bothered to comment on that letter for advice. People want to play close to the heartbeat but can't stand the thumping sound - get over it. Things sometimes get harsh and, well, disagreeable when you're in that zone. Someone throws chairs, another threatens "Your job is gone before mine!" - CEOs are not in that position to be nice, nor are they there to be creul, they are there to do a job, produce results, perform. If they don't, they're gone. I agree with you, if you can't take it, leave. But my guess is people who have the self esteem and the assertiveness necessary (not aggression) can both work with this guy and get him to back off a tad - but it is FIRSTLY the person's responsibility, not the CEO's. Thanks for the listen... and yes, I am a CEO.

You could save this column and forward it to the Board as you leave, just be sure to have that new position lined up. I was in a similar poisonous position years ago and I had serious mental stress, and frequent physical stress as well. Then I found a position with a smaller organization where I was "on the team" was given responsibility and allowed to make decisions and actually accomplish things. I never missed that old job. The bad job was great on paper, saving the wildlife, which I had gon to grad school for. The great job was in garbage!

The Wikipedia article "Psychopathy" is highly descriptive:

"Emeritus Professor Robert Hare... describes psychopaths as "intraspecies predators who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, and violence to control others and to satisfy their own selfish needs. Lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without guilt or remorse.""

"The manipulative skills of some...are valued for providing audacious leadership."

Psychopathy is considered "adaptive in a highly competitive environment, because it gets results for both the individual and the corporations they represent", but psychopaths "cause long-term harm..."

"They have no empathy, remorse, anxiety or guilt in relation to their behavior. In short, they truly are devoid of conscience" but "they understand that society expects them to behave in a conscientious manner, and therefore they mimic this behavior when it suits their needs."

These types respond to treatment "both by becoming more cunning and hiding their behavior better"; it "actually makes them, if not worse, then far more adept at manipulating others and concealing their behavior."

"...incurable but also untreatable."

I left the employ of one of these in radio broadcast engineering - publicly, he is so very popular - privately, he begins by stalking his new subordinates.

Two and a half years was enough; $60K/year wasn't; and after I quit, he visited me, saying, I should have "just asked for more money!"

Money and power attract these types.

I worked for a similar CEO at a startup years ago. Simplest description for him was 'jerk', but his methods did either motivate you or send you looking for another job. He was a master at figuring out what buttons to push on anyone and I had many long walks at lunch to cool down. Nor did his rants seem fair; he singled out certain individuals more than others. But, I chose to develop the thick skin approach and recognize it was his way to try to motivate rather than anything personal. I concentrated on performing my role as best I could and extracting direction from his rants. I evaluated him in terms of achieving his objective of building the company. When it was clear he was failing, I left. I believe I did my part, or at least I accomplished what he required, since it was my decision to leave. The company failed within a few months of my leaving.

That experience was immensely valuable in a number of ways and I'm glad I went through it, but I have no desire to repeat it. My current employer is outstanding and the CEO is a genuine good, but tough, guy. I think my previous experience has helped me appreciate that even more. Sometimes you need to have a really bad job so you can recognize a good one when you get it.