Quote:
Originally Posted by octothorp
Right, but let's say there's a hypothetical where a company receives a bailout, sometime shortly before or after firing their CEO. That 500K limit is going to reduce the number of qualified individuals who would be willing to take this job, essentially giving these companies a competitive disadvantage against other, non-bailout companies. Which essentially means the government is reducing the likelihood of them recouping their investment.
Now, the other possibility is that this creates a situation where you attract individuals who are less concerned about getting a paycheck and more concerned about doing something meaningful and important; and it might be an incentive for these companies to forget about hiring the most high-profile candidate and instead hire the most appropriate and competent. I hope that ends up being the result of this legislation.
|
How exactly does one become qualified to run a Fortune 500? Sure some of the characteristics are tangible, but if this crisis has taught us anything it's that generic MBA's do not qualify someone to run a tire company, for example. You can't walk in off the street and plan to turn a company around unless you have a true understanding of the specifics of that company.... Something our education system has emphasized much too heavily. Look at the current CEO of Chrysler, no background whatsoever in the auto industry, yet here he is running the company into the ground. How are we to know whether a CEO willing to work for 500k is going to do a worse job than a CEO getting paid 10 times that amount?
Companies are being forced to attempt some out of the box thinking, and it's the healthiest thing possible for this era.