Time and again, we see CEOs and similar executives make horrible decisions that massively damage a company both financially and in terms of reputation and the perpetrator is forced to resign, yet receives so much money as a going away present you’d think they’re being rewarded for their fuck up. Why??

  • awhtd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 years ago

    Essentially, there aren’t a lot of candidates for roles like “CEO” at really large companies, so they want to attract the best candidate from a limited pool. Those people get to ask for whatever crazy thing they want if the board really wants them, and golden parachutes aren’t illegal, so why not?

    • derf82@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      Oh, there are plenty of candidates, just not ones they will consider. They only take rich people from the right background.

    • curiosityLynx@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Are you saying that these CEOs have it in their contracts that they get a ridiculous amount of money if they fuck up enough to get fired? Doesn’t that incentivize them to be reckless?

      • tburkhol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        No candidate for those jobs ever believes he will fuck up, nor that disastrous results are their direct responsibility. They always believe that the only reasons they’d be fired are political infighting or an investor/BoD revolt. Therefore, they want golden parachute clauses to protect them from such completely unjustified threats and criticism.

        They’re usually just separation clauses - i.e. whenever Joe Blow leaves his CEO position, he gets $X million. Like a lump-sum pension, which is more money that they don’t have to call salary.

    • jivemasta@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      There is another aspect, sometimes a CEO is brought on in a knowingly temporary situation. Sometimes a company needs to make an “unpopular” decision, like massive layoffs or restructuring. Or they just need a CEO to come in and stir the pot. They’ll bring the CEO in, they’ll do their thing, and then once the deed is done, they will “decide it’s best to part ways” in some form.

      This sort of CEO position usually is a one and done for that person making them a less desirable candidate for employment in the future, so they get a nice golden parachute to compensate. Basically, they get paid to be the “bad guy” and are essentially selling themselves as a scapegoat for the company.