Executive compensation is justified by "...enormous impact leadership decisions have on company outcomes..." yet when those decisions blow up spectacularly, the accountability somehow evaporates.
If your pay is 400 times average employee salary because of your unique strategic vision, surely firing 4000 people based on faulty assumptions should come with proportional consequences?
Or does the high risk, high reward, philosophy only apply to the reward part?
We all know the answer. There is no actual defense of inflated CEO salaries. It’s just the people in power maintaining their power and always has been.
If your pay is 400 times average employee salary because of your unique strategic vision, surely firing 4000 people based on faulty assumptions should come with proportional consequences?
Or does the high risk, high reward, philosophy only apply to the reward part?