12 ms·

Upvoted since I think this discussion might be interesting. I'm wondering why people focus on financial compensation so much? Why does how much someone was pai

Upvoted since I think this discussion might be interesting. I'm wondering why people focus on financial compensation so much? Why does how much someone was paid justify more or less bashing, as the case might be? And what's unhealthy about tone policing? I'll leave aside the way you've negatively framed my attempt to steer the conversation in a more positive direction, and just say that I don't see what the purpose of publicly bashing a well-compensated CEO who didn't have much success is. Who is this unhealthy for? For her? For us? For future boards of directors who may be trying to attract a CEO to turn their company around?

AbrahamParangi 10y ago
I think the comment you're responding to is suggesting that though giving someone (Mayer) the benefit of the doubt might be humane, it may not be, strictly speaking, rationally appropriate. I believe the financial compensation angle is that because she was particularly well compensated, she is perceived to not have much skin in the game. As an aside, I don't think this is especially productive because it is incredibly rare to find someone running a company who isn't deeply emotionally invested in that enterprise, but the perception remains. Obviously, though the crowd wants to excoriate Mayer I think if folks have a problem with her compensation they should look to the board.
thinkloop 10y ago
> And what's unhealthy about tone policing? It silences discussion by subtly and indirectly labeling any critics as bad guys. Not all tone policing is bad, HN is the king of good tone policing, I don't think this makes it. For example, I like your non-tone related points, and I'm glad they were able to come out!
Strom 10y ago
> I'm wondering why people focus on financial compensation so much? Why does how much someone was paid justify more or less bashing, as the case might be? The payment and bashing might be slightly related, but I tend to think it's a minor factor. People focus on financials so much because that's what the western culture is built upon. The American Dream, if you will. However bashing, complimenting, or mentioning someone at all comes with fame. I'm fairly certain people would talk a lot about Marissa Mayer regardless of whether she got paid anything. The ratio of criticism-to-compliments tends to go hand-in-hand with the person's perceived success-to-failure ratio. Marissa Mayer wasn't that successful, and thus she'll mostly get criticism.
- stanleydrew 10y ago
  > The ratio of criticism-to-compliments tends to go hand-in-hand with the person's perceived success-to-failure ratio. Intuitively this seems accurate. Wondering if you know of actual research regarding this though? To add to that, I think people have a hard time assessing relative success. Imagine being dropped in as the captain of the Titanic after it's hit the iceberg. If you manage to delay the sinking for an extra hour, which allows more people to escape, you are successful even if most people do drown. You're successful relative to some expected value. But drive-by armchair analysts will just see that the ship sunk and a bunch of people died and blame you. Obviously this situation is much more complicated, since opinions will differ about whether Yahoo was in fact inevitably sinking, or whether a different captain could have helped it survive.
jonknee 10y ago
> I'm wondering why people focus on financial compensation so much? Why does how much someone was paid justify more or less bashing, as the case might be? To me it's because she wasn't taking a risk, she was getting paid massive amounts regardless of what she did. Why celebrate someone who enriched herself as the company imploded and had to lay off thousands of people? There are so many other people worth accolades.
- iaw 10y ago
  She never has to work a day in her life after disrupting the lives of thousands of her employees while failing to accomplish any of her objectives. She had all risk removed when they hired her.
  - shostack 10y ago
    Are you so confident in knowing what her objectives were that you can make that statement? For all we know the board wanted to maximize value on the way down.
usrusr 10y ago
If I take the time to put criticism of the contract in one mental bucket and criticism of the person and/or her performance in another, I get the impression that the preemptive tone policing loses much of its cause. I'd rather have those two buckets nicely separated than shushed together.
vidarh 10y ago
> I'm wondering why people focus on financial compensation so much? Why does how much someone was paid justify more or less bashing, as the case might be? Because it reveals the tenuous relationship between executive pay and company results, and people prefer to take it out on the obvious cases rather than accept that there's little evidence they correlate very well.
mmmBacon 10y ago
>I'm wondering why people focus on financial compensation so much? Why does how much someone was paid justify more or less bashing, as the case might be? It's simply the issue of gratuitous executive pay. If her pay hadn't been >>100x what a typical SV worker makes I think she'd get significantly less flak. The idea of someone being granted enough money so their great-grandchildren never have to work a day when that person did a poor job after only 4 years on the job just makes people sick. Don't forget some bad stuff happened on Mayer's watch; like 1B user accounts being compromised.
ianderf 10y ago
> I'm wondering why people focus on financial compensation so much? I think that it's unjust when people are paid crazy money for doing poor job. As well as when people are paid little money for good job.

AbrahamParangi 10y ago

I think the comment you're responding to is suggesting that though giving someone (Mayer) the benefit of the doubt might be humane, it may not be, strictly speaking, rationally appropriate. I believe the financial compensation angle is that because she was particularly well compensated, she is perceived to not have much skin in the game. As an aside, I don't think this is especially productive because it is incredibly rare to find someone running a company who isn't deeply emotionally invested in that enterprise, but the perception remains. Obviously, though the crowd wants to excoriate Mayer I think if folks have a problem with her compensation they should look to the board.

thinkloop 10y ago

> And what's unhealthy about tone policing? It silences discussion by subtly and indirectly labeling any critics as bad guys. Not all tone policing is bad, HN is the king of good tone policing, I don't think this makes it. For example, I like your non-tone related points, and I'm glad they were able to come out!

Strom 10y ago

> I'm wondering why people focus on financial compensation so much? Why does how much someone was paid justify more or less bashing, as the case might be? The payment and bashing might be slightly related, but I tend to think it's a minor factor. People focus on financials so much because that's what the western culture is built upon. The American Dream, if you will. However bashing, complimenting, or mentioning someone at all comes with fame. I'm fairly certain people would talk a lot about Marissa Mayer regardless of whether she got paid anything. The ratio of criticism-to-compliments tends to go hand-in-hand with the person's perceived success-to-failure ratio. Marissa Mayer wasn't that successful, and thus she'll mostly get criticism.

stanleydrew 10y ago
> The ratio of criticism-to-compliments tends to go hand-in-hand with the person's perceived success-to-failure ratio. Intuitively this seems accurate. Wondering if you know of actual research regarding this though? To add to that, I think people have a hard time assessing relative success. Imagine being dropped in as the captain of the Titanic after it's hit the iceberg. If you manage to delay the sinking for an extra hour, which allows more people to escape, you are successful even if most people do drown. You're successful relative to some expected value. But drive-by armchair analysts will just see that the ship sunk and a bunch of people died and blame you. Obviously this situation is much more complicated, since opinions will differ about whether Yahoo was in fact inevitably sinking, or whether a different captain could have helped it survive.

jonknee 10y ago

> I'm wondering why people focus on financial compensation so much? Why does how much someone was paid justify more or less bashing, as the case might be? To me it's because she wasn't taking a risk, she was getting paid massive amounts regardless of what she did. Why celebrate someone who enriched herself as the company imploded and had to lay off thousands of people? There are so many other people worth accolades.

iaw 10y ago
She never has to work a day in her life after disrupting the lives of thousands of her employees while failing to accomplish any of her objectives. She had all risk removed when they hired her.
- shostack 10y ago
  Are you so confident in knowing what her objectives were that you can make that statement? For all we know the board wanted to maximize value on the way down.

usrusr 10y ago

If I take the time to put criticism of the contract in one mental bucket and criticism of the person and/or her performance in another, I get the impression that the preemptive tone policing loses much of its cause. I'd rather have those two buckets nicely separated than shushed together.

vidarh 10y ago

> I'm wondering why people focus on financial compensation so much? Why does how much someone was paid justify more or less bashing, as the case might be? Because it reveals the tenuous relationship between executive pay and company results, and people prefer to take it out on the obvious cases rather than accept that there's little evidence they correlate very well.

mmmBacon 10y ago

>I'm wondering why people focus on financial compensation so much? Why does how much someone was paid justify more or less bashing, as the case might be? It's simply the issue of gratuitous executive pay. If her pay hadn't been >>100x what a typical SV worker makes I think she'd get significantly less flak. The idea of someone being granted enough money so their great-grandchildren never have to work a day when that person did a poor job after only 4 years on the job just makes people sick. Don't forget some bad stuff happened on Mayer's watch; like 1B user accounts being compromised.

ianderf 10y ago

> I'm wondering why people focus on financial compensation so much? I think that it's unjust when people are paid crazy money for doing poor job. As well as when people are paid little money for good job.