4 ms·
>If you’re on the board of an organization like that, settling for a second-best CEO to save a 7-figure sum just doesn’t make sense. You're falsely associating
by coderintherye 3y ago
>If you’re on the board of an organization like that, settling for a second-best CEO to save a 7-figure sum just doesn’t make sense.
You're falsely associating higher pay with performance, when oftentimes they can be inversely correlated.
https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/CEOperformance122509.pdf https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/CEOperformanc...
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/when-ceos-are-paid-bad-performance https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/when-ceos-are-paid-bad...
https://www.epi.org/blog/ceo-pay-still-not-related-to-performance/ https://www.epi.org/blog/ceo-pay-still-not-related-to-perfor...
- csharpminor 3y agoI didn’t say anything about performance. What I said is that it’s untenable for a board to penny-pinch a few million dollars for someone managing orders of magnitude more in resources. A board gains nothing from pointing to a 2005 Stanford GSB blog post if a CEO they hired runs the company into the ground. Again, all this to say we should just tax CEOs more and let companies pay what they want.
- coderintherye 3y ago>second-best Your performance comment is right there. What else is "second-best" other than a comment on performance?