Slashdot Mirror
Worst Tech CEOs Earn the Most Money
tappytibbins writes to tell us Baseline is reporting that in a recent look at the 100 largest tech companies they found that there was a striking correlation between the highest paid CEOs and the lowest returns. From the article: "The one-third highest performing companies paid their chief executives an average of $7.12 million--while the bottom third paid their CEOs $9.29 million. The study compared direct compensation, which includes base salary, bonus and value of stock grants. Why the disconnect? Jack Dolmat-Connell, founder and president of the firm, cites the phenomenon of 'chasing the median': Companies benchmark their executive compensation figures on peers instead of looking at factors related to performance."
Their CEOs made a lot of money while their companies went down the drain.
Ashton-Tate when down the toilet because Dbase 4 was a pile of crap and all they put their money into was suing their competition.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
That book was by Jim Collins. His point was not that companies with higher paid executives performed worse, it was that in taking a cross-section of successful companies - those with higher paid CEO's didn't necessarily become more successful.
He has written a follow-up book titled "From Good to Great" which does another analysis concerning what it takes for a company to really elevate itself above its competitors. This book was written as a prequel to "Built to Last". It also highlights the same ideals, in that money is not necessarily THE PRIMARY motivator in a company that can become very successful. Successful being that its stock price displays gains of more than 3.2 points above the market consistantly across 15 years.