[jasonwelk]

I guess I will never understand the business model employed by most large companies that involves paying executives such enormous sums, even in cases where the leadership failed (I say this in general, not because I think Mayer failed). It seems there is a big disconnect between performance and compensation when you get to a certain level of leadership.

[bmmayer1]

At that level, in general, boards pay CEOs that much money to leave, because the cost of them staying on to the shareholders is often many times more. The severance usually sounds like a lot compared to what you or I make, which is why it gets such bad headlines, but compared to the often billions of dollars it could cost shareholders to retain a bad CEO instead of finding a new one; it's a no brainer.

[dikdik]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to fire her and not give her an insane severance package?

Have the "elite" somehow made it illegal to get rid of them without multi-million dollar packages? Or is this just an example of, we do it because it's always been done this way?

[hellofunk]

I still don't understand that logic. What does choosing to fire someone have to do with whether or not you pay them a ridiculous severance? Are you suggesting that it is impossible to fire a CEO without giving them an absurd amount of money?