Originally Posted by
Jagboi
I would have thought that acting "urgently and decisively" to threats to the company was the job definition of a top executive, not something to get a bonus for.
It’s always a curious one. The justification might be that they had to manage a massive posture shift with fewer resources (on account of lay offs) - i.e. sort out the mess with less.
The flip side is that they kept their jobs, and if they hadn’t laid off (some of their) employees, they would have had more resources and would have consequently had to expend less effort.
Guess the bottom line is: would they have been better off spending those $XX million on keeping more staff employed; or, rewarding the select few for what was undoubtedly a difficult initial couple of months for those lucky enough to keep their jobs.
But then again, I suppose one’s view depends on whether one thinks holding down one’s job might well be reward enough in these trying economic situations. I suspect that qualifies as an “entitlement” issue which, I understand from certain airline folk justifying overpriced budget products, is a common theme in Canada.