2 ms·
> Yes, why would it not be? It’s still skin in the game. [...] and will take the loss personally. Because there isn't any loss overall? His compensation went u
by diggan 2y ago
> Yes, why would it not be? It’s still skin in the game. [...] and will take the loss personally.
Because there isn't any loss overall? His compensation went up 63%, what are these losses you're talking about?
If his total compensation actually went down, I'd totally agree with you. But it didn't, which is why I don't understand how this is seen as "great leaders punish themselves".
- jjmarr 2y agoHe would've had 5 million more dollars this year if he didn't ask the board to change the terms of his contract to give him less money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
- diggan 2y agoYeah, so he would have gotten $84.1 million instead of what he really got, only $79.1 million. Imagine being a CEO yet so poor.
- wenc 2y agoSo if I’m hearing you right, it sounds like you’re looking for net loss to justify the statement that “good CEOs punish themselves”, a statement made by another HNer and not by Nadella himself? He did take a loss but not a net loss, so it didn’t go far enough is what I’m sensing? Thus it’s an empty gesture devoid of any commitments to improve? For me when I see gestures like this, I’m like oh ok. At some level I know it’s symbolic but it still sends a good signal. It doesn’t scream hypocritical to me.