this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
1005 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
60101 readers
1992 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Tell me again why these hacks get paid so much for "taking risks" when they never end up being fired? I have not seen a single CEO officially fired from a company for driving it into the ground. They always "choose" to retire after fucking up the entire thing and collect a fat paycheck for doing so.
He's been told to retire or be fired.
Being actually fired is not at all good for his CV at that level, hence he is leaving by "retiring", a different process in legal terms.
That said, anybody with any experience with high-level management knows that a manager "retiring" after having made the kind of the decision this one did with the consequences it had, actually means he's been pushed out, just not through the formal process of "firing".
that's why I put the "choose" into air quotes. It's bs, anybody with a bit of info about the matter knows it but he still gets to cash out his boni because he has not been technically fired for crashing the company's future
Well, had he been fired the whole thing would've ended up in Court as he tried to get the full amount of his contract period (so all contractually defined payments until the end of his contract) plus likely all bonuses, while the company would be trying to prove he was fired for cause, all of which would be quite a public display of dirty laundry, at the end of which one side would lose and quite likely and indirectly both sides would lose.
Meanwhile, he wouldn't just accept to leave by his own hand "for the good of the Company" without compensation.
So that's how you end up with him "retiring" (legally he's the one leaving) with a golden umbrella (his compensation for doing so rather than drag it through the courts).
I'm almost certain that the Board fucked-up and don't want to see themselves personally trashed in Court whilst the company tried to prove the CEO had severely mismanaged, hence went for the "give him money for leaving quietly and not involving the Courts" option.
Ultimatelly the ones that should be held to account are the Board who hired him and apparently were either directly behind that genious idea of screwing their relationship with their customers or were behind him when he pushed that idea out. This is why in another post I very clearly state that the Board needs to be kicked out to begin to start restoring the trust of the customers.
PS: That said, the system is broken, which is how the seriously incompetent Board members (as amply demonstrated by them hiring him and this whole thing going ahead on their watch) ended up in their cozy sinecures, risk-free with their backs covered using the company's money, and also why he was hired in the first place with the kind of contractual conditions he got.
Air quotes? heh.
He ran EA. It doesn't matter if he retires or is fired. It's irrelevant at that level. Everyone knows the board said you need to leave, which means being fired. The only potential difference is final compensation. Future job prospects are not changed either way for him.
I suspect openly being fired would make harder for his mates in the boards of other companies to convince the remaining board members to hire him.
It's not about competence, it's about not having quietly stepped out when asked to (only CEOs that don't quietly step out are fired, the rest "retire") - you could say that the deadly sin by a CEO for a Board is not incompetence, it's making a fuss when asked to leave.
Once you slightly climb the career ladder, vocabulary turns into marketing bs. Suddenly you most not say "problem" anymore. They're "opportunities" or "challenges". So at that level you don't get "fired" because that would sound bad for the next company you're going with. You're looking for new challenges elsewhere. Leaving behind a dumpster fire like in this very case.
I mean with a company that big, they can just google you to see what you messed up
At that level cronyism is rife and merit is secondary to connections.
As long as he doesn't have a big black spot on his CV, his mates can keep doing him favours using the resources of the companies in which they're board members or similar and he will keep on doing favours to them in the same way.
It's not by chance that in that environment there is a web were the CEOs of some companies are board members in other companies, whose CEOs are board members of the first company - or in other words "I scratch your back, you scratch my back".
When you're a career professional, this is what being fired looks like.
"Choosing to retire" is face-saving language for "is being asked to step down," which is sort of like the police asking you to turn yourself in. You can choose not to, but you're still getting arrested either way
yes and that's bullshit. They run a company into the ground, risking and often costing the livelyhoods of hundreds or thousands of employees and then take a fat bonus because, as you said, they were not fired, they were forced to resign. Sitting comfortably in their golden parachute they then glide over to the next opportunity to ruin people's lives and days.
Also since you did not get that I was hinting at exactly what you wrote by using "choose" instead of choose and you seemingly not being the first person to stumble over that I have to work on my sarcasm skills.
They'd get paid severance if they were fired - it's likely them "retiring" saves the company money overall.
I do agree that CEO compensation is insane, due to perverse incentives, but this seems like harm reduction on the part of the board
I do apologize for missing your sarcasm as well.
Typically that is true but at this level executives have contracts with non-compete clauses and as part of that even voluntary departures usually come with a severence, since they aren't allowed to work in the industry for 6-12 months after leaving (unless they negotiate something as part of their departure). It's very likely he got a generous payout.
It's seen as a necessity for protecting intellectual property and company knowledge that the leaders take with them when they leave. It's why so many execs start their own businesses after leaving big companies but don't officially open shop for a while.
It's advantageous to have someone quit from a severance/unemployment stance.
It's also why if you feel like you're about to get fired without cause and don't already have a job lined up you should absolutely wait for them to fire you so you can collect unemployment.
It really doesn't matter if they step down or are fired. The words are meaningless. They will still get hired to run another company.
Yep they get all the praise when things go good. But shit happens and it's lnever their fault.
You don't get fired when you're at the management level, you "resign".
You only get to become CEO when you have friends in high places. Why would anyone risk the backlash for hurting you when silently letting you go with a golden handshake doesn't cost their own money or at least a neglegible part of it.
I know but to the common pleb it's still always sold as "well they get this much money because they're on the hook if the company goes down" which, as shown time and time again, is just not how these parasites operate. No they operate exactly as you describe it moving from one opportunity to suck money out of the lower classes to another.