3 ms·

The top has to have the ability and leeway for things to go wrong so that they can take risks. To make sure they take the right risks they are stakeing a % of t

by CamatHN 10y ago

The top has to have the ability and leeway for things to go wrong so that they can take risks. To make sure they take the right risks they are stakeing a % of their pay if its in options or bonuses as well as in their reputation.

dpark 10y ago
> To make sure they take the right risks they are stakeing a % of their pay if its in options or bonuses as well as in their reputation. Did you manage to hold a straight face while you wrote that? The people at the top still walk away with millions or more when they screw up. The people at the bottom walk away with very little. Whether the risks are worth taking is a good question, but certainly the people at the top don't feel the bulk of the pain if the risks don't pay off.
joshAg 10y ago
No one's arguing that they shouldn't have that leeway and ability. They're saying it's shitty that people on the bottom get punished as a result of risks taken because of that leeway.
RCortex 10y ago
Fuck around or fuck up, and your compensation is only hit with a pillow. And people make excuses for how you failed at your responsibilities. Sounds nice. If CEOs are afraid to take necessary risks because of consequences, they suck at their jobs as leaders and should be fired. CEOs need to know what they're doing, they shouldn't be given a lower bar to clear than everyone else. That they do is mindboggling.
jaggederest 10y ago
A percentage of their pay? While people further down the line lose all of their pay without having significant say? Questionable.
zouhair 10y ago
I am sorry but they are taking no personal risk at all. THey lay off so they can get the bonuses anyway.
CamatHN 10y ago
yeah perhaps I worded this wrong. I don't believe its the right system and the way it should be done but thats how accountability is viewed within the current system (which I think should change).

by CamatHN 10y ago

dpark 10y ago

> To make sure they take the right risks they are stakeing a % of their pay if its in options or bonuses as well as in their reputation. Did you manage to hold a straight face while you wrote that? The people at the top still walk away with millions or more when they screw up. The people at the bottom walk away with very little. Whether the risks are worth taking is a good question, but certainly the people at the top don't feel the bulk of the pain if the risks don't pay off.

joshAg 10y ago

No one's arguing that they shouldn't have that leeway and ability. They're saying it's shitty that people on the bottom get punished as a result of risks taken because of that leeway.

RCortex 10y ago

Fuck around or fuck up, and your compensation is only hit with a pillow. And people make excuses for how you failed at your responsibilities. Sounds nice. If CEOs are afraid to take necessary risks because of consequences, they suck at their jobs as leaders and should be fired. CEOs need to know what they're doing, they shouldn't be given a lower bar to clear than everyone else. That they do is mindboggling.

jaggederest 10y ago

A percentage of their pay? While people further down the line lose all of their pay without having significant say? Questionable.

zouhair 10y ago

I am sorry but they are taking no personal risk at all. THey lay off so they can get the bonuses anyway.

CamatHN 10y ago

yeah perhaps I worded this wrong. I don't believe its the right system and the way it should be done but thats how accountability is viewed within the current system (which I think should change).