Leadership?
FFS.
The day AJ gives back, say, $1million because the company made a loss proportionate to his net worth.....I'm sure he will have the staff onboard.
If AJ owned the company- so when it loses ....$300 million, he loses $300million, I am certain behaviours would be different.
However, when the CEO, who has neither built the company, nor has any real stake in the company, collects his multi-millions regardless of what happens, then how does anyone expect ownership of the decisions?
If his nuts were on the block, I am certain things would be different. What do you think, professor- should executives be remunerated with millions of dollars when presiding over such large losses and underperformance/negative turn-arounds? Or should there be a similar fate as faced by the owners? i.e you make a large profit, we will pay you millions. Make a large loss, and we will remove limbs/appendages.
Or is there another agenda, which would make paying millions for such poor paper performance palatable?
Otherwise, let's pay an MBA from say, India/Philippines/China/Vietnam to be CEO at $250k, since such benchmarking seems to be a good idea.