[lowercased]

I suspect it's at least partially the 'giving a raise/increase while also firing people at the same time' optics which doesn't sit well with folks.

It doesn't actually strike me as 'reasonable rate' for a company which is losing market share with their main products, has a history of multiple failed product/service launches, and is having to fire people to cut costs. I (and many others) could get the same results for a mere $700k/year.

[dylan604]

I see your $700K/year, and raise with an offer to do the same job of losing users and starting multiple failed products/services for $650K/year.

[handrous]

Hell, I'll almost certainly fail, but I've at least got some ideas to try out to (sloooowly) turn the ship around, for that rate. "Keep on truckin'" clearly isn't working.

[seoaeu]

> It doesn't actually strike me as 'reasonable rate' [...] I (and many others) could get the same results for a mere $700k/year.

Surely, you can see the flaw in this logic though? If you set the salary too low, then only unqualified people will apply, and you'll be guaranteed to get bad results. You have to pay a competitive salary if you want even a chance of getting a skilled leader. Worse, it is harder turn around a company that is doing poorly than to cruise along at the helm of a well performing one. Which means that you both want to have higher standards when selecting a CEO of a poorly performing company, and also have to pay a premium to attract qualified candidates at all.

[phonon]

Except she is the one who has been overseeing this slide into irrelevancy for many years now....for whatever reason the Board, instead of replacing her, rewards her.

[KMnO4]

A different way to look at it is that the CEO provides >$2M in value to the company, whereas many of the engineers were not providing their $100k+ salary of value.

[burnished]

Do they, though? That seems like a pretty hot take.

[KMnO4]

I have no idea, since I'm not the Mozilla exec responsible for those decisions. It's a hot take, but it's not my take.