4 ms·

"If they are good at being ruthlessly selfish for themselves they might be good at being ruthlessly selfish for the company as well." Makes me wonder if the op

by usrusr 4y ago

"If they are good at being ruthlessly selfish for themselves they might be good at being ruthlessly selfish for the company as well." Makes me wonder if the opposite could become fashionable: "I trust myself to fly without the golden parachute, you might want to make that part of your consideration". At first glance that sounds quite compelling to me, but on the other hand, would I feel safer or would I feel less safe with a Taxi driver who does not bother putting on the seat belt? I think my answer would be less safe, event though a part of me wishes to be one who'd feel safer.

vishnugupta 4y ago
Speaking from personal experience, execs (most of them) are anything but risk takers. They are good wheeler-dealers, know how to navigate the land-mine filled org-chart to get things done. Not too different from civil servants. Those who develop risk appetite won't stay at such big orgs, they either go work at a startup or start on their own. So over a period (FB has been around for like 15 years now) an org accumulates extremely risk averse execs.
- baremetal 4y ago
  "No one ever gets fired for buying IBM"
dsr_ 4y ago
Let's extend the metaphor: if the execs are pilots, and the employees are passengers, then having parachutes for the pilots but not the employees constitutes a moral hazard.
- vkou 4y ago
  It's only a moral hazard if the execs are working for, and are accountable to the employees. They don't, and they aren't. They work for, and answer to the owners.
  - usrusr 4y ago
    footnote: for certain values of "moral" (you are right though, the term "moral hazard" is surprisingly well defined and basically has nothing to do at all with the sum of its parts)
  - dsr_ 4y ago
    In that case, having parachutes for the execs is a moral hazard.
    - vkou 4y ago
      Yeah, but that's a problem for the owners. Who are big boys, and can probably navigate this conflict of interest out without us. Or if they want to keep pissing away their money, they can keep hiring clowns that ruin their companies, and then pull the ripcord. It's their money on the line, not mine.

by usrusr 4y ago

vishnugupta 4y ago

Speaking from personal experience, execs (most of them) are anything but risk takers. They are good wheeler-dealers, know how to navigate the land-mine filled org-chart to get things done. Not too different from civil servants. Those who develop risk appetite won't stay at such big orgs, they either go work at a startup or start on their own. So over a period (FB has been around for like 15 years now) an org accumulates extremely risk averse execs.

baremetal 4y ago
"No one ever gets fired for buying IBM"

dsr_ 4y ago

Let's extend the metaphor: if the execs are pilots, and the employees are passengers, then having parachutes for the pilots but not the employees constitutes a moral hazard.

vkou 4y ago
It's only a moral hazard if the execs are working for, and are accountable to the employees. They don't, and they aren't. They work for, and answer to the owners.
- usrusr 4y ago
  footnote: for certain values of "moral" (you are right though, the term "moral hazard" is surprisingly well defined and basically has nothing to do at all with the sum of its parts)
- dsr_ 4y ago
  In that case, having parachutes for the execs is a moral hazard.
  - vkou 4y ago
    Yeah, but that's a problem for the owners. Who are big boys, and can probably navigate this conflict of interest out without us. Or if they want to keep pissing away their money, they can keep hiring clowns that ruin their companies, and then pull the ripcord. It's their money on the line, not mine.