←back to thread

Mozilla lays off 70

(techcrunch.com)
929 points ameshkov | 1 comments | 15 Jan 20 19:48 UTC | HN request time: 0.201s | source
Show context
overcast ◴[16 Jan 20 01:55 UTC] No.22060963[source]▶
Only in fairy tale land does CEO/Executive compensation reflect performance.
replies(3): >>22061196 #>>22069377 #>>22069380 #
manfredo ◴[16 Jan 20 02:34 UTC] No.22061196[source]▶
Many CEOs derive a significant portion - often even the majority - of their compensation from performance-based bonuses. Compensation not only reflects performance, it is directly tied to it.
replies(6): >>22061470 #>>22061680 #>>22061840 #>>22062306 #>>22062972 #>>22064311 #
nitwit005 ◴[16 Jan 20 05:09 UTC] No.22061840[source]▶
The price of oil goes up, and all the oil company executives get bonuses (it sounds silly, but this genuinely does happen).

A lot of these compensation packages are well intended, but they aren't without problems. People who make bad decisions often get performance bonuses regardless.

replies(1): >>22062876 #
1. thu2111 ◴[16 Jan 20 09:19 UTC] No.22062876[source]▶
Those are the ones you hear about in the press, but the press looks for outrage.

"CEO earns 10x less than previous year due to declining stock price linked to market share loss" is not a headline to set pulses racing. Performance linked comp works OK most of the time. Sometimes CEOs negotiate deals that are terrible for the company, where they get paid lots even if the firm tanks. My experience has been that this usually happens when the firm is in deep trouble anyway, the CEO knows they probably can't turn it around, but will have a tarnished reputation regardless. Getting experienced people to try and turn the Titanic is expensive and many will want a big reward for even trying.

Also, badly run companies do things like sign bad deals. But it's a circular problem. If they were well run they wouldn't be signing bad CEO deals to begin with.