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."
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.
How about the former CIO where I worked? You could swear his primary motivation was to get himself more money, however he did it, by making his performance look good, the long-term problem is determining if that appearance of 'good performance' really was as good as it looked on paper and how it enabled the business the grow or trim costs effectively.
"If I make all those guys putting in 16 hour days wear suits and ties, we'll look more professional and I'll get compliments on what a tight ship I run! That should get me $100,000 more per year."
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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
It could be that those companies that are run by those who undervalue their workers and and mismanage the companies towards the top are doomed to failure.
Or those companies whose management is there for love of the business tend to do better.
Or a company desperately in need of help is likely to dump huge sums of money on acquiring the most expensive CEO they can, in the hope of a turnaround.
The ______ Agenda
I remember a business book from the 90s, "Built to Last", that also noted that companies with higher paid executives performed worse.
My Tech company isn't making anything. $0 returns. I think that means I should be getting paid WAAAAY more than all these guys. I wonder who I talk to about that..
I generally agree that top level execs are paid too much.
However, regardless of that opinion, there's an easy explanation for the results the article found: given a top-notch CEO who gets a job offer from a well-performing company as well as an underperforming company, which company do you think would have to pay more to get his services?
Clearly, companies that are in need of a turnaround and repair are going to have to pay more to get equivelent talent. Not only is the work harder, but the prospect of failure and termination are much higher. It's a greater risk, and therefore the market will make it more expensive.
So there are a couple of valid interpretations of this data, and the article (wisely, probably) makes no attempt to jump from correltation to causation. Too bad so many people -- even slashdotters -- have such a hard time resisting the instinct to see the two as being the same.
-b
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
If correlation==cause, does that mean Steve Jobs (current salary: $1) would head a list of the world's best CEOs?
There is a problem with this study: it measures shareholder return as a percentage, but compensation as a dollar value. If a CEO grows a $10B company by 1%, he generates $100M for shareholders. If a CEO grows a $100M company by 10%, he generates only $10M for shareholders. The study implies that the second CEO deserves to be paid more, because his company had a larger percentage return. But one could certainly make a good argument that the first CEO deserves to be paid more, because he generated a larger absolute return to shareholders.
In fact, given the general trend that smaller companies tend to grow faster than large onces, you would expect the data to look like this even if there is no intrinsic correlation between CEO pay and corporate performance.
I don't write this because I believe that the market for CEO pay works. I write this only because this particular study doesn't prove that the market for CEO pay doesn't work.
Hell yeah.
Where can I sign up to be a CEO?
I'll be the worst CEO you can imagine.
That's the problem with pay-for-performance - it invites abuse. Whatever arbitrary benchmarks you set for the CEO/CIO/everyday employee, there will be the temptation to work to the benchmarks and ignore the longterm best interests of the company. Taken to it's extreme, you get an Enron or WorldCom, where executives spent most of their time making the books reflect performance that would enhance their stock options.
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
Performance has little to do with it.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Now where have I heard that one before...
Anyway, a few months later we hear news from Bangkok (of all places) of a stock scam. Guys in a "boiler room" had been selling a bunch of stocks in various companies. They would deliberately pick companies that were heading for bankruptcy (or could be pushed in that direction) and make press releases about the amazing stuff they were doing and produce nice glossy brochures. They'd then use this material to hard sell the stocks by phone. When the companies failed they'd then run off with the money paid for stocks knowing that they'd never have to pay out. (I don't fully understand the mechanics of this despite reading an article in Time about this exact scam.) Anyway, on the list of companies being traded, there was our company!
The key staff (who actually did work) at the company jumped ship. Almost everyone else followed. But bizarrely the company didn't need any staff to continue its scamming. They carried on making press releases describing their (imaginary) work and I remember reading a news story in which I myself was quoted talking about my work there, long after I left! On the basis of this they managed to get multi-million dollar grants from a US city famous for its Mafia connections and presumably, with few staff to pay, the CEO could pay himself very handsomely.
One day I want to write a book about our company. (I did start a Wikipedia entry which hasn't been deleted yet.) Sadly I think of it as 'ours' because a bunch of us worked hard to make it a world-class company that competitors looked up to. Unfortunately, due to the large number of Italian names of the people involved, and the aforementioned reputation of the city that was involved, I might wait a few years.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Boo fucking hoo.
Suppose Kenneth Lay faked his death - even with the money they lawyers will squeeze back from his estate, he'll never have to work again and can live rather well anyplace on earth, because he almost assuredly has some packed away somewhere safe.
Meanwhile, the thousands of people he screwed out of jobs and pensions plans while playing funny money games may have to take jobs at Walmart to keep from eating cat food in their "retirement" - or, if Social Security is privatized, becoming homeless due to yet more Ken Lays robbing the private funds set up in its place.
A lawyer I know who has represented white collar criminals confirms that many of them truly think "if I do five years in jail and come out set for life, good for me." Meanwhile, minor pot dealers fill our prisons for a "crime" that hurts no one.
Excuse me for thinking it's time to bring back the guillotine and right the scales of justice.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Well, I should RTFA -- this is a snap comment based on the summary.
It reminds me of my occasional impression that at least portions of (U.S., at least) society are becoming an "entitlement" society. If you have the right background, you're effectively entitled to certain compensation. Fancy degree, prior "experience" in the right kinds of roles.
Back in olden days, it might have been a formal family title. But with the increasingly disparate prices of various "classes" of education, the elimination of the so-called "death tax", and the like, family assets are certainly an element of the equation.
Ivy League degree. Connections to secure "fast track" positions. Moving on before the damage catches up.
Actually, many who might fit this description may well be competent. But I also see signs of the scenario I describe. Reminds me of a previous job, and the rotating executives at the company who seemed to be staying in position just long enough to gain a step onto the next rung of whatever ladder.
You're absolutely correct that the article summary is somewhat statistically (and economically) illiterate. Instead of "Worst Tech CEOs Earn the Most Money," why not "Struggling Companies Pay CEOs Top Dollar to Turn Things Around"?
... like people who complain that "The Man" is keeping them down.
So there are a couple of valid interpretations of this data, and the article (wisely, probably) makes no attempt to jump from correltation to causation. Too bad so many people -- even slashdotters -- have such a hard time resisting the instinct to see the two as being the same.
Unfortunately, I don't think this is a coincidence. There's no way Slashdotters would have so grossly misinterpreted a study correlating, say, video games and violence -- because the party line around here is that video games are a Good Thing. A lot of geeks, however, have complete disdain for the "suits" and "pointy haired bosses" in management. "Why do the 'clueless' managers make so much money, when I'm obviously so much smarter? Why do I have less job security when I'm the one working 100 hour weeks, fueled by Mountain Dew and fear of downsizing?" It's true that there are bad managers out there, but much of this attitude is just scapegoating for one's own job dissatisfaction
It also shows a profound misunderstanding of business. To the disgruntled coder, it may seem like the business world is stupid and arbitrary -- where people make more money the "dumber" they are -- because they don't understand it. But really, it's little different than if the CEO said: "I don't understand your C++ code; it just looks like a bunch of random characters you threw together. Therefore, it's stupid." Like it or not, there is such a thing as skill in business -- and oftentimes, it's rarer and less replaceable than technical skill. Just take a look at the career of Steve Wozniak, with and without Steve Jobs. Now look at the career of Steve Jobs, with and without Steve Wozniak.
Cheers,
IT
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
Figuring that leaves me with $3 million to work with...that should get me two university professors, two hot-shot MBA grads, two accountants, two lawyers, two scientists/engineers in the relevant business, a doctor just for balance, four secretaries - and a cool half million for me.
I am sure that together we can make just as good of decisions as your precious CEO.
Actually, I think the problem here is the Lake Wobegon Effect - no company is will to admit that it would dare hire a below average CEO. Therefore, of course theirs deserves pay greater than the average...
Probably right here.
Stock Holders!!!!! Listen up you should try being a capitalist insted of watching all the silly nonsense. Capitalism means you get paid. Check out those dividend checks. If they are not there you probably bought a pig in a poke. Quit paying attention to annual report con games and start looking at the most basic axiom of capitalist reality. Capital gets paid!
A few convenient signs that capitalists should look for. If a company is outsourcing its product, the management has decided for reasons that may or may not be obvious to investors, that the company is obsolete and is no longer functional. You are going out of business and dividends will not be coming your way any time soon. If your CEO has given himself a raise and fired your employees you know this is a fact.
Another sign is pretty simple. Check the turns of your busines. Walmart for example and it is one of the better US examples, it turns its inventory about 90 to 100 times a year. That is for a retailer very fantastic. They have conned the towns into building their stores under Industrial Development Bonds so they don't even own the stores. Their inventory is largely consignment or on 60 day payment terms. This means they are turning an inventory with at least 5% per turn net income 90 times a year (Net income per year is now 90 Times 5 = 450% per year on gross value) Since they don't even own the gross value the calculation fails to go high enough. It means in plain terms they should be paying dividends well in excess of 500% a year. If you were a capitalist, you would wake up to this and demand your check or fire the CEO. Failure to demand your dividend check is to see the CEO steal your income as his paycheck.
For those idiots in the moderation group who don't see that this is capitalism, I suggest you get a dictionary and forget your mod points. It is time for capitalism to return and Faschism to go away.
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.