[saxman001]

Mark Zuckerburg addressed this question very well on the Lex Friedman podcast. He pointed out that facebook did some science around this and discovered that many top level decisions are lose-lose from a public perception standpoint. On key policy questions the losing interest group almost always manages to create a stink that outweighs the happiness of the winning group.

Couple this with the well documented negative bias of the news, and it's not surprising that most corporate public figures have bleak reputations.

Note that I'm not actually defending these men. I'm simply pointing out that there are some structural reasons for the strong negative perceptions of these executives.

[magicalhippo]

Reminds me of when I worked at a grocery store, during training it was drilled that one angry customer would outweigh ten happy customers.

[giraffe_lady]

or it could be that the only reasons to go for a billion when you already have a hundred million are pathological?

I know this is extremely simplistic and insufficient as a complete explanation, but I truly think it's a major component.

[beeboop]

I don't think it necessitates pathological, though I am sure there are higher rates of it among the wealthy. I don't think someone worth $100 million keeps working because they're incentivized by the money as much as they're incentivized by "success". They enjoy the power and prestige and reputation and having people work for them. They enjoy getting to make big, powerful decisions. They like having their big ego.

Of course many do genuinely just want that $400 million yacht and won't get there unless they make a few billion first.

[MisterTea]

Let me get this strait. A billionaire funds a study to find out why they are considered an asshole and the answer is conveniently "the plebs and the big bad media". Riiiiiiiight

[ssully]

I mean there absolutely is truth to it. When you get to the size of Facebook, you are going to be pissing people off with almost any decision you make.