Time and again, we see CEOs and similar executives make horrible decisions that massively damage a company both financially and in terms of reputation and the perpetrator is forced to resign, yet receives so much money as a going away present you’d think they’re being rewarded for their fuck up. Why??

  • Cobrachicken@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    To make them go away before doing more damage although their contract is still valid for some years. Same with a messie as tenant, you essentially bribe them to go before they damage the flat even more.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not only that, but that parachute comes with… well… strings attached. (Sorry.)

      Most CEOs have a high-level understanding of a companies long-term strategic plan, which would be very valuable to competitors. That payout is probably tied to an iron-clad NDA and non-compete clause. While non-compete clauses get a lot of bad press when peons are forced to sign them, for executives they make total sense, especially when directly tied to a payout, which can be clawed back if there is chicanery.

      If an executive is bad enough, paying them to not work anywhere for a few years may be less risky than firing themand risking them blabbing to th3 competition.