Slashdot Mirror
Lenovo CEO Shares $3 Million Bonus With Workers
hackingbear writes "Yang Yuanqing, founder and CEO of Chinese PC maker Lenovo, will share $3.25 million from his bonus with some 10,000 staff in China and 19 other countries. 'Most are hourly manufacturing workers,' Lenovo spokeswoman Angela Lee said. 'As you can imagine, an extra $300 in a manufacturing environment in China does make an impact, especially to employees supporting families.' In its annual review last year, Lenovo raised Yang's base pay to $1.2 million and awarded him a $4.2 million discretionary bonus and a $8.9 million long-term incentive award. Yang owns 7.12% of Lenovo's shares, equivalent to about $720 million in stock."
I believe that he did this last year as well.
Good on him, especially considering that Lenovo has been quite successful recently in a contracting PC market
It's easy to be a philanthropist when you're rich. Just sayin'
Its also easy to not share your wealth with your workers.
Thanks for the info. I will make it a point to buy / recommend Leveno products. I want to reward this behavior.
The workers feel appreciated and will be diligent.
You don't happen upon good employee morale and company stewardship.
It has to be grown. Quality and waste will decrease. When employees feel zero empathy for the company or it's future, a fall is sure to follow.
In before 1000 Libertarians explaining that nobody works unless they're paid money, because nothing is important except accumulation of material tat.
Libertarian here. His stock is worth $720M, and he only gave away 0.5% of that. If his generosity boosts morale enough to generate just 1% more profit, then he has doubled the money. He is publicizing this gift, so the workers are aware of the source, rather than giving anonymously, so he is at least partly motivated by greed. This looks like a smart investment.
If this is all about return on investment, why don't all CEs of multinationals do this?
Are they all that dumb? Are you saying they should all be sacked?
Actually all the empirical evidence seems to point to it being harder.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Not as easy as you think. First you have to get over yourself. That's HUGE when you're rich because you tend to think you're better than those below you and your status and ability to rise to your level convinces you of it. So, no it's not as easy as you think. In reality, it's easy to imagine being generous when you don't have much to give.
Just sayin'
Say or say not. There is no just.
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
He's giving part of his bonus to be distributed to his workers? That's the path to socialism!
I'm a Libertarian who thinks corporations should be outlawed in current societies and denied any form of special privileges like limited liability or any form of personhood in a utopian free society. What were you saying again about grossly overpaid CEOs? I agree that they are grossly overpaid. I suspect that most of them could be replaced with someone who makes less than 100k per year no problem.
Even if the company made a little bit less money it would be good for the morale of everyone else if one person were not so ridiculously overpaid.
I think you have to be blind to not see that a corporation represents an unhealthy concentration of power in the hands of a few. Power corrupts. Also the behavior of a corporation is indistinguishable from that of an individual sociopath. The last thing we need is more sociopaths in our or any society. We certainly should not be encouraging them as we do now.
Companies, as in groups of individuals working toward a common goal, which should not be to make a pile of money in any way they can, but to produce a product or service they can be proud of, while hopefully at the same time earning enough to live comfortably, are themselves necessary evils because when they grow large they grow powerful even without limited liability or legal personhood, but there is simply no alternative that actually works. Human beings have to work together in groups to produce useful things. Government owned corporations are no better than privately owned ones. In fact they are usually worse.
You know what else is a necessary evil? Governments. That's why we Libertarians like to keep them as small as possible. In general I'd also like to keep companies as small as possible, but large companies also have advantages in terms of more affordable goods and services for poor people. Human beings simply don't behave as well in groups, especially in large groups, but I don't think artificially limiting their size makes sense in the way it does for governments. The economic advantages for the poorest members of society are simply too great. Nevertheless I think it would have great non-monetary benefits on society as a whole if all companies or organized groups of any kind were limited to no more than 100 people.
Are you sure you weren't thinking of a Republican. Some of you pro-government types get us confused so easily but we actually have very little in common. Some very minor common ground in economic theory with a small minority of them, probably the ones who call themselves tea partiers, and that's all.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
In reality, it's easy to imagine being generous when you don't have much to give.
Bingo. Being rich insulates you from understanding hardship, the most generous people are generally the ones who can least afford it because they experience some level of poverty on a daily basis.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.