3 ms·
The question wasn't what pay was deserved for a _good CEO_. It was whether a a raise was deserved simply by being a CEO. And the fact you're pointing out - such
by Falling3 7y ago
The question wasn't what pay was deserved for a _good CEO_. It was whether a a raise was deserved simply by being a CEO. And the fact you're pointing out - such a large difference in results between a good and bad CEO - points to the answer being "no", not "yes".
- charlesdm 7y agoSo how should a CEO be compensated then, if you're so sure the answer here is no instead of yes?
- devcpp 7y agoAs with all things, it's a matter of demand and offer. If a potential CEO has a choice between a company that pays well no matter what, and a gamble which could leave him out of a job and without money, he'll choose the sure outcome. On the other hand, a good CEO is such an important thing that companies will bend over backwards to meet their demands. So they do that. A few million bucks is cheap change for potentially higher earnings. You might argue that incentivizing CEOs should be more important than getting a good one, but you'll have to ask shareholders at major companies why they don't insist on that instead. Whether this is "deserved" or not is irrelevant. What matters is profitability, not fairness.