[pixelatedindex]

> Performance based compensation is absolutely standard for CEOs- Both in terms of options and stock grants.

Yes but you’re still making $1.5M after a 34% haircut. That seems like a reward, and not any real sense of taking responsibility when you have to let go 1 in 5. Wouldn’t it be better if he just got a base salary of 200K or something and no stocks for that year? He already has a bunch of equity and if he does well at the end of the year, that equity will be worth more anyway.

[s1artibartfast]

In what sense do you think it would be better? Would it advance CEO performance or the company? Would it bring the world more into alignment with some sense of moral justice?

[pixelatedindex]

It certainly would be some real accountability. They didn’t perform well and they’re mostly compensated in equity, so they get less of it. When they perform better, they’ll get more equity. Why wouldn’t this encourages the CEO perform better? The sword cuts both ways.

[s1artibartfast]

You are describing how the world already works. The only difference is base pay. Why do you think lower base pay is better accountability and performance? They already have millions on the line. I imagine better base pay means better candidates.

[johnnyanmac]

>Why do you think lower base pay is better accountability and performance?

it really doesn't matter. Because you don't just apply on linkedin and get interviewed for a CEO position like this. You're already a millionaire if you're being considered for a million dollar position. It can be charity work and I wouldn't care because you probably accrue money passively anyway.

>They already have millions on the line.

and if they fail they have millions left. oh no!

the outcome can be equal but the opportunity never was. And it's a real shame people with these safety nets actively work to erode the pittance of safety nets he government gives to people who make less than them in their careers than they do in a few months.