7 ms·

Checked-out employees are a real problem. Checked-out executives are an even worse problem, though, because they set the tone for their departments and their di

Checked-out employees are a real problem. Checked-out executives are an even worse problem, though, because they set the tone for their departments and their disconnectedness will be noticed by the people working underneath them in the org chart. Eventually, the motivated people leave and the only people who remain are those who are also checked out (and enjoying the free pass from their checked-out boss) or the disgruntled who loathe the situation but would rather complain about it than leave. Not a fun place to be! However, the opening example in this article seems different: > A friend of mine recently turned down a job promotion that included a raise of $100,000 a year. He has some financial flexibility to turn down the offer, since he’s already a mid-level executive at a Fortune 1000 company and makes about $300,000 annually. He said he determined “it just wasn’t worth it” since the promotion called for more travel and more time away from family. That’s reasonable. You don’t have to travel and be away from your family to make good contributions to a company. You don’t have to chase every single raise. The bigger problem would be this example exec’s commitment to their side company. An executive who hangs on to their paycheck, benefits, and prestigious position while using their time to build their own company on the side is not good for a company. There is no way this person is maintaining a mid-level executive job at a big company, dedicating time to their family, and also building their own company on the side.

bojangleslover 5y ago
Considering he would only take home about $50k from that $100k, I bet many of us would have done the exact same thing.
- godelski 5y ago
  Plus you have to consider the value. What does that extra $50k get you? I mean besides a higher bank account score? You're already making $300k/yr and living very well off. Does the extra spending power get you much more? It seems return on value is diminishing. If you're away frequently you won't be able to spend that money (well your family can). How much do you value time with your family? I'd rather have that money to spend _with_ my family than _on_ my family.
  - devmunchies 5y ago
    The hidden value could be the higher title that you could sit on for 3 months and leverage it into another 100-200k gain by jumping to another company with the higher title.
- jkic47 5y ago
  I agree - I am fortunate to be in a state of life where there is nothing I want that I can't afford (not because I am rich, but because I am satisfied with what we have). Another $xxx K is money that will go into a bank that I will probably never spend - not worth it to me.
- Tydirian 5y ago
  If they are in the US they are going to pay ~30-35% depending on married vs. single for income from $300-400k (less on the first $300k). This is also all income they could invest given they don't need it to support their lifestyle. Even it it were only $50k this is huge since they could accelerate retirement because it would increase the amount they invest annually by 2-3x. It's a lifestyle choice for sure but this money would have a significant impact.
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    $50k/yr doesn't really accelerate retirement as much as it would seem. You probably spend at least some of that on lifestyle creep, and if you're at $300k/yr already, you've likely already gone about as far as you can in tax advantaged savings sources. I'd probably still take it, but I'll admit I'm a bit more money motivated than the average person.
    - lazide 5y ago
      If you’re comfortable-but-barely-stable relationship wise, that extra money would cost you a whole lot more in ensuing legal fees. Not counting the emotional pain and suffering.
      - paulryanrogers 5y ago
        Are you saying the extra money and travel could contribute to divorce?
        lazide 5y ago
        I’m saying extra money in exchange for instability/changes and less work life balance can easily strain even previously rock solid relationships that are solidly in agreement about and aligned towards those goals. if someone has a relationship where there are not shared goals of more money and change/excitement? Well, if you think you’d end up ahead on the money side at the end of that fallout, you’d be fooling yourself.
    - 5y ago
- waterlaw 5y ago
  This exactly. In a 52% tax bracket in Canada. Factor in sales tax. That's a 65% tax on new income. No point in getting a raise. Particularly, because the employer is going to expect >$100k in value from the employee to make up for the raise and the employee barely receives half. The middle class is being destroyed through taxes and inflation, while wealthy asset holders see their assets outpace inflation while taxed at much lower rates.
  - azth 5y ago
    And some people still think it's a good idea to raise taxes. Quite baffling really.
waynesonfire 5y ago
> An executive who hangs on to their paycheck, benefits, and prestigious position while using their time to build their own company on the side is not good you have to be specific, whose time are you referring to? It matters. Are you assuming the executive is using company time to work on his side gig? If so, that's quite the claim. Or are you suggesting that it's not good that he's thinking about his side-gig in the shower instead of using those brain cycles towards his current employer? If that's the case then I think you're out of touch on the duty he has towards his employer.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dasil003 5y ago
  Things are different for executives at large companies making 7+ figures. It's not about punching a clock and clearly delineated time at that point, it's about effectiveness. If you only need 20 hours a week to keep things running smoothly that's fine, but you also need to be available for a crisis 24/7. It's also a reasonable expectation that 100% of your "work energy" go to the company. Obviously if you are perceived as good enough you can call your own shot (eg. Jack Dorsey), but this is the exception not the rule. That said, personal time for hobbies, even if "business-like" on some dimensions (eg. building an app, selling stuff on Etsy, etc) are probably fine as long as it is recharging your batteries and does not have any real or perceived conflict of interest with your primary company.
  - prirun 5y ago
    The whole idea that companies "own" you, no matter what they pay you to work for them, needs to go. If you own the company and want to dedicate your entire life to it, that's one thing. When you only work for a company, even if you are getting stock, the company should not expect you to dedicate your life to it in the same way as the people who actually own the company and get to make the decision about how your stock options work (for example). Even if everyday clerical kinds of jobs, companies have gotten the idea that workers are beholden to them and often have soul-crushing policies and expectations. I'm glad workers are finally saying "Enough!", giving them the finger, and finder better jobs rather than putting up with companies having unreasonable demands on their workforce.

bojangleslover 5y ago

Considering he would only take home about $50k from that $100k, I bet many of us would have done the exact same thing.

godelski 5y ago
Plus you have to consider the value. What does that extra $50k get you? I mean besides a higher bank account score? You're already making $300k/yr and living very well off. Does the extra spending power get you much more? It seems return on value is diminishing. If you're away frequently you won't be able to spend that money (well your family can). How much do you value time with your family? I'd rather have that money to spend _with_ my family than _on_ my family.
- devmunchies 5y ago
  The hidden value could be the higher title that you could sit on for 3 months and leverage it into another 100-200k gain by jumping to another company with the higher title.
jkic47 5y ago
I agree - I am fortunate to be in a state of life where there is nothing I want that I can't afford (not because I am rich, but because I am satisfied with what we have). Another $xxx K is money that will go into a bank that I will probably never spend - not worth it to me.
Tydirian 5y ago
If they are in the US they are going to pay ~30-35% depending on married vs. single for income from $300-400k (less on the first $300k). This is also all income they could invest given they don't need it to support their lifestyle. Even it it were only $50k this is huge since they could accelerate retirement because it would increase the amount they invest annually by 2-3x. It's a lifestyle choice for sure but this money would have a significant impact.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  $50k/yr doesn't really accelerate retirement as much as it would seem. You probably spend at least some of that on lifestyle creep, and if you're at $300k/yr already, you've likely already gone about as far as you can in tax advantaged savings sources. I'd probably still take it, but I'll admit I'm a bit more money motivated than the average person.
  - lazide 5y ago
    If you’re comfortable-but-barely-stable relationship wise, that extra money would cost you a whole lot more in ensuing legal fees. Not counting the emotional pain and suffering.
    - paulryanrogers 5y ago
      Are you saying the extra money and travel could contribute to divorce?
      - lazide 5y ago
        I’m saying extra money in exchange for instability/changes and less work life balance can easily strain even previously rock solid relationships that are solidly in agreement about and aligned towards those goals. if someone has a relationship where there are not shared goals of more money and change/excitement? Well, if you think you’d end up ahead on the money side at the end of that fallout, you’d be fooling yourself.
  - 5y ago
waterlaw 5y ago
This exactly. In a 52% tax bracket in Canada. Factor in sales tax. That's a 65% tax on new income. No point in getting a raise. Particularly, because the employer is going to expect >$100k in value from the employee to make up for the raise and the employee barely receives half. The middle class is being destroyed through taxes and inflation, while wealthy asset holders see their assets outpace inflation while taxed at much lower rates.
- azth 5y ago
  And some people still think it's a good idea to raise taxes. Quite baffling really.

waynesonfire 5y ago

> An executive who hangs on to their paycheck, benefits, and prestigious position while using their time to build their own company on the side is not good you have to be specific, whose time are you referring to? It matters. Are you assuming the executive is using company time to work on his side gig? If so, that's quite the claim. Or are you suggesting that it's not good that he's thinking about his side-gig in the shower instead of using those brain cycles towards his current employer? If that's the case then I think you're out of touch on the duty he has towards his employer.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dasil003 5y ago
Things are different for executives at large companies making 7+ figures. It's not about punching a clock and clearly delineated time at that point, it's about effectiveness. If you only need 20 hours a week to keep things running smoothly that's fine, but you also need to be available for a crisis 24/7. It's also a reasonable expectation that 100% of your "work energy" go to the company. Obviously if you are perceived as good enough you can call your own shot (eg. Jack Dorsey), but this is the exception not the rule. That said, personal time for hobbies, even if "business-like" on some dimensions (eg. building an app, selling stuff on Etsy, etc) are probably fine as long as it is recharging your batteries and does not have any real or perceived conflict of interest with your primary company.
- prirun 5y ago
  The whole idea that companies "own" you, no matter what they pay you to work for them, needs to go. If you own the company and want to dedicate your entire life to it, that's one thing. When you only work for a company, even if you are getting stock, the company should not expect you to dedicate your life to it in the same way as the people who actually own the company and get to make the decision about how your stock options work (for example). Even if everyday clerical kinds of jobs, companies have gotten the idea that workers are beholden to them and often have soul-crushing policies and expectations. I'm glad workers are finally saying "Enough!", giving them the finger, and finder better jobs rather than putting up with companies having unreasonable demands on their workforce.