5 ms·
Maybe! Bear in mind that this is a rather swift process. Finding people who are both capable of and willing to take on this sort of project is not easy. Even if
by i_am_proteus 8y ago
Maybe! Bear in mind that this is a rather swift process. Finding people who are both capable of and willing to take on this sort of project is not easy. Even if they could be found, they are not likely to have deep knowledge of the internal structure of the company, which is (ironically) critical given that the company is restructuring.
So, perverse as it seems, existing talent with explicitly-performance-linked compensation is often the least worst choice during a wind-down.
It's bankruptcy. It's a failing company. It's ugly. Theoretically these folks are making a lot less than they would have had the company not failed.
- scoggs 8y agoI guess then the simplest way to look at the people retained is that they most likely weren't instrumental to the company's downfall and their experience / knowledge / familiarity with said company is absolutely more valuable than their participation in the company's downfall is threatening to future prospects?
- madrox 8y agoIt's disappointing how often the knee-jerk "why are they getting paid millions to fail" implication comes around given this is exactly why things happen the way they do. It weaponizes people's desire for fairness.
- lovich 8y agoIf everyone was still getting paid it wouldn't be as big a deal. What's happening is that now in the bankruptcy that was either caused or not prevented by this same leadership, they have decided that paying out to employees as per their agreements is something to be axed but they have to keep paying the executives. They cause the problem and then make others deal with the fallout. Being angry at this isn't weaponizing people's desire for fairness. It's the same as if someone had a factory generating industrial waste that they piped on to your land. They are keeping the profit, and making others pay for it