Kaptin, I'm sure Geoff Dixon includes his staff in his decision making but when weighing his responsibilities they clearly have to be to the people who employ him. How can CEOs answer primarily to their employees? CEOs by definition must make decisions that will sometimes piss their employees off. That's their job.
I appreciate its a hypothetical but a 100% turnover of shareholders in 12 months would by definition damage QF immensely, if not terminally. If all of your shareholders sell their shares is this likely to increase the share price or decrease it? A large drop in the share price is going to threaten the company's existence more than staff turnover, particularly in such a capital intensive industry.
Lets look at QF's shareholders. A large majority of QF shares are held by fund managers and institutional investors. i.e. share market professionals. They do not measure a company's success by how happy the employees are. They are looking for hard financial data. If Geoff Dixon produces two plans - one for a radical restructure to reduce expenditure by $1 billion and the other a long term plan to reduce staff turnover (and not respond to a competitors attack on the QF cost base) - which one will they go for? Which one would they back to maintain or improve the share price?
Do you make investments to ensure the recipients of your capital are happy or do you set out to make a return? If its the former PM me and I can put you on to some great ventures
BTW - if you are judging companies by their staff morale maybe you wouldn't be ranking
VB too far ahead of QF at the moment.