2 ms·

Having to make up the losses with their personal property and their future work. Garnish some large cut of any future earnings. Make a bad decision that looses

by Ekaros 2y ago

Having to make up the losses with their personal property and their future work. Garnish some large cut of any future earnings. Make a bad decision that looses company 100 million. Now you owe company 100 million. And that would not be dischargeable. Seems fair deal, you do well you earn a lot. You do badly well you will make up for it with your own money. Board should be able to make them pay with their body.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
That I agree might put more skin in the game, but I don't think it would drive up performance. Imagine you offer a scaled down version for an office job. Do you think you will get better candidates and performance? Candidates would avoid it like the plague and you would be left with crazy gamblers or those with nothing to lose. You compete for talent with making good offers, not terrible ones.
tester756 2y ago
>Make a bad decision that looses company 100 million. Now you owe company 100 million. And that would not be dischargeable. So this way CEOs would pick safer strategies rather than innovative? They already are stock based compensated, so if company tanks, then they lose money too. __________ Also, I don't really understand why rational adults try to enforce some not-so-attractive rules about how companies should negotiate contracts with people, who are supposed to drive their them to the growth. After all, it is their $$, right?
mike_hearn 2y ago
> Garnish some large cut of any future earnings. That already happens. People usually hear about the exceptions where someone has such good connections they fail upwards or sideways, but mostly if you fail at being CEO that's the last job you'll ever have. You can't really drop back down to being an IC at that level, and if you get fired from the CEO role then it's very hard to get another one. You're basically self employed or retired from that point on, which is why CEOs demand such high compensation. Examples of CEOs who failed and then never got another real job: - Marissa Mayer. Not even clear Yahoo!'s failure was her fault, but after she stopped being their CEO she had to make her own no-name startup and has been there ever since. - Carly Fiorina. Fired from HP in 2005, never worked in a corporate executive role again. Had a few board memberships but switched into non-profit and politics. - Steve Ballmer. Early retirement in 2013 aged 58 after saying he planned to stay until at least 2018. Post-MS he did some philanthropy but hasn't worked. - John Sculley. Fired from Apple in 1993, never worked as a corporate executive again although he did have a good career as a tech investor, board member and the like. - Ellen Pao. After being exited from Reddit she never worked as a corporate executive again, instead spending time on non-profit feminist advocacy. - Tony Hayward. After the Deepwater Horizon disaster he was fired from BP and has had no executive positions since. There are lots more examples like this. Failure at the CEO level is usually failure for life, so like in professional sports that pushes up the comp people demand to take the job, as if they get booted out they need enough saved resources to last a long time.

by Ekaros 2y ago

s1artibartfast 2y ago

That I agree might put more skin in the game, but I don't think it would drive up performance. Imagine you offer a scaled down version for an office job. Do you think you will get better candidates and performance? Candidates would avoid it like the plague and you would be left with crazy gamblers or those with nothing to lose. You compete for talent with making good offers, not terrible ones.

tester756 2y ago

>Make a bad decision that looses company 100 million. Now you owe company 100 million. And that would not be dischargeable. So this way CEOs would pick safer strategies rather than innovative? They already are stock based compensated, so if company tanks, then they lose money too. __________ Also, I don't really understand why rational adults try to enforce some not-so-attractive rules about how companies should negotiate contracts with people, who are supposed to drive their them to the growth. After all, it is their $$, right?

mike_hearn 2y ago

> Garnish some large cut of any future earnings. That already happens. People usually hear about the exceptions where someone has such good connections they fail upwards or sideways, but mostly if you fail at being CEO that's the last job you'll ever have. You can't really drop back down to being an IC at that level, and if you get fired from the CEO role then it's very hard to get another one. You're basically self employed or retired from that point on, which is why CEOs demand such high compensation. Examples of CEOs who failed and then never got another real job: - Marissa Mayer. Not even clear Yahoo!'s failure was her fault, but after she stopped being their CEO she had to make her own no-name startup and has been there ever since. - Carly Fiorina. Fired from HP in 2005, never worked in a corporate executive role again. Had a few board memberships but switched into non-profit and politics. - Steve Ballmer. Early retirement in 2013 aged 58 after saying he planned to stay until at least 2018. Post-MS he did some philanthropy but hasn't worked. - John Sculley. Fired from Apple in 1993, never worked as a corporate executive again although he did have a good career as a tech investor, board member and the like. - Ellen Pao. After being exited from Reddit she never worked as a corporate executive again, instead spending time on non-profit feminist advocacy. - Tony Hayward. After the Deepwater Horizon disaster he was fired from BP and has had no executive positions since. There are lots more examples like this. Failure at the CEO level is usually failure for life, so like in professional sports that pushes up the comp people demand to take the job, as if they get booted out they need enough saved resources to last a long time.