[warmind99]

Coming from the finance world, there's a very good reason that doesn't happen. In situations where a company is spiraling, everyone is incentivized to leave for new work. The people who are most competent at work are also most capable of getting new jobs, so what used to happen before it was standard was as a company died, the best people left, and the company died faster.

If you axe the CEO's pay by 50% one year, what reason does he have to stay on and fix things? Why shouldn't he just go to some successful series A startup, get a bunch of equity, and retire in 10 years? He definitely could, if he wanted to.

[hn_throwaway_99]

While I fully understand the logic of what you're saying, this is what makes us peons despise the upper execs, as they've turned it into a game of "Heads I win, tails you lose".

I mean, if you're a great CEO, you're lavished with Midas-level wealth. If you're an absolute shitty CEO, you're also lavished with let's say Midas-junior-level wealth in the form of retention bonuses and/or golden parachutes to fix the mess you created (as you, no doubt, axe a large number of your underlings).