Lenovo CEO Gives His $3 Million Bonus to 10,000 Employees • Hacker News Board

Re: Lenovo CEO Gives His $3 Million Bonus to 10,000 Employees

#41

Post by rayiner » Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 6:58 PM UTC

brazzy wrote: post #37

rayiner wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Here in the US we have a cultural flaw where we irrationally conflate equilibria in the supply/demand of labor with distribution of credit for a company's success. The CEO gets paid a lot more because there is a much smaller supply of people who have the pedigree/qualifications to be CEO than to be a line worker. There is no chain of logic that can take you from there to the conclusion that he's more important t…

I'd say it's exactly the other way round: the CEO definitely has to make decisions that impact the company far more than what 10,000 line workers do, for better or for worse. The open question is whether the commonly used pedigree/qualifications that decide who gets to be CEO actually enable people to make substantially better decisions.

Without the line workers, there is no product. Without a CEO there is no product. They're both but-for causes (in the legal sense), and in that sense equally indispensable.

What you need is a sensitivity analysis, of profitability of the company versus changes in CEO versus line worker performance. I'd imagine you'd find that a 20% efficiency jump in the line workers would have a much bigger change on the bottom line than a 20% better CEO.

Re: Lenovo CEO Gives His $3 Million Bonus to 10,000 Employees

#42

Post by MattSayar » Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 6:59 PM UTC

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #35

jakejake wrote: post #22

I don't really think all that much about somebody who is fantastically rich giving away money that they won't miss. Although it's still somewhat cool because other fantastically rich people wouldn't do this and seem more concerned with increasing their own wealth to an obscene amount.

Now there's a backhanded compliment! Dude, it doesn't matter how rich he is. He gave away his own money to the people who are making him rich as a gesture of thanks and goodwill. WTF would you find anything to belittle that?

Exactly. He didn't say, "Well, I guess I don't need this. Here, I'll just let my employees deal with it." He made a conscious decision to not increase his wealth for the benefit of others.

Re: Lenovo CEO Gives His $3 Million Bonus to 10,000 Employees

#43

Post by brazzy » Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 7:03 PM UTC

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #35

jakejake wrote: post #22

I don't really think all that much about somebody who is fantastically rich giving away money that they won't miss. Although it's still somewhat cool because other fantastically rich people wouldn't do this and seem more concerned with increasing their own wealth to an obscene amount.

Now there's a backhanded compliment! Dude, it doesn't matter how rich he is. He gave away his own money to the people who are making him rich as a gesture of thanks and goodwill. WTF would you find anything to belittle that?

Let's put it like this: it deserves some praise, but not as much praise as someone donating a kidney, wouldn't you agree? Yet this is newsworthy and earns praise from all over the world, while people who actually do donate a kidney barely make it into local news, if at all.

Re: Lenovo CEO Gives His $3 Million Bonus to 10,000 Employees

#44

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 7:06 PM UTC

toomuchcoffee wrote: post #12

uptown wrote: post #4

Equates to about $314, or a month's pay per employee by reported estimates.

China-based workers make about one third of their U.S. equivalents in those job categories -- so that'd be more like a 1K bonus stateside. Quite substantial. [1] Source for e.g. receptionists: http://www.worldsalaries.org/hotelreceptionist.shtml

[deleted]

Re: Lenovo CEO Gives His $3 Million Bonus to 10,000 Employees

#45

Post by jusben1369 » Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 7:07 PM UTC

meninpink wrote: post #13

Silly publicity stunt and unbecoming of the principles of the free market. He could have created a lot more value by investing the money in a high-powered startup; not passing handouts to janitors and secretaries.

Ahh yes. The "testosterone" fueled view of capitalism that thinks optimizing your own wealth and profit must always be associated with a combative, gladiatorial narrative. In this individuals particular situation spreading that money to reward employees is likely the smartest way for him to optimize his own wealth. His employees love him which secures his ongoing wealth accumulation (who fires a popular CEO). I assume he has a significant stack of stock options that continue to increase in value through motivated retained employees.

Re: Lenovo CEO Gives His $3 Million Bonus to 10,000 Employees

#46

Post by keithpeter » Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 7:09 PM UTC

MattSayar wrote: post #42

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now there's a backhanded compliment! Dude, it doesn't matter how rich he is. He gave away his own money to the people who are making him rich as a gesture of thanks and goodwill. WTF would you find anything to belittle that?

Exactly. He didn't say, "Well, I guess I don't need this. Here, I'll just let my employees deal with it." He made a conscious decision to not increase his wealth for the benefit of others.

Mark Shuttleworth (Canonical/Ubuntu) is quite good on this idea. Shuttleworth sold Thawte to Verisign for quite a lot of money. He is on record as suggesting that there is only so much you can actually buy. Money should be used to make things happen.

Whatever you think of Ubuntu, he has certainly done that.

Re: Lenovo CEO Gives His $3 Million Bonus to 10,000 Employees

#47

Post by bronson » Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 7:09 PM UTC

brazzy wrote: post #37

rayiner wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Here in the US we have a cultural flaw where we irrationally conflate equilibria in the supply/demand of labor with distribution of credit for a company's success. The CEO gets paid a lot more because there is a much smaller supply of people who have the pedigree/qualifications to be CEO than to be a line worker. There is no chain of logic that can take you from there to the conclusion that he's more important t…

I'd say it's exactly the other way round: the CEO definitely has to make decisions that impact the company far more than what 10,000 line workers do, for better or for worse. The open question is whether the commonly used pedigree/qualifications that decide who gets to be CEO actually enable people to make substantially better decisions.

More than 1 worker, sure. More than 10,000? Not likely.

Re: Lenovo CEO Gives His $3 Million Bonus to 10,000 Employees

#48

Post by sharkweek » Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 7:10 PM UTC

MattSayar wrote: post #42

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now there's a backhanded compliment! Dude, it doesn't matter how rich he is. He gave away his own money to the people who are making him rich as a gesture of thanks and goodwill. WTF would you find anything to belittle that?

Exactly. He didn't say, "Well, I guess I don't need this. Here, I'll just let my employees deal with it." He made a conscious decision to not increase his wealth for the benefit of others.

I will gladly "deal" with any money my boss needs me to

Re: Lenovo CEO Gives His $3 Million Bonus to 10,000 Employees

#49

Post by delinka » Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 7:12 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #41

brazzy wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say it's exactly the other way round: the CEO definitely has to make decisions that impact the company far more than what 10,000 line workers do, for better or for worse. The open question is whether the commonly used pedigree/qualifications that decide who gets to be CEO actually enable people to make substantially better decisions.

Without the line workers, there is no product. Without a CEO there is no product. They're both but-for causes (in the legal sense), and in that sense equally indispensable. What you need is a sensitivity analysis, of profitability of the company versus changes in CEO versus line worker performance. I'd imagine you'd find that a 20% efficiency jump in the line workers would have a much bigger change on the bottom line…

CEO takes two weeks off. What happens to the company?

10,000 "low-level" employees take two weeks off (all at once.) What happens to the company?

Companies operate without CEOs while boards seek candidates. Companies can't produce product while it seeks 10,000 replacement workers.

As long as we have the chief executive on one hand and the workers on the other, that is.

Re: Lenovo CEO Gives His $3 Million Bonus to 10,000 Employees

#50

Post by zobzu » Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 7:17 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #25

kapilkale wrote: post #18

This is great, but this statement from the author is a pretty terrible assumption: "It's nice to see an executive giving away a huge chunk of money to the employees that had as much to do with Lenovo's successful year as any executive within the company"

Why? Here in the US we have a cultural flaw where we irrationally conflate equilibria in the supply/demand of labor with distribution of credit for a company's success. The CEO gets paid a lot more because there is a much smaller supply of people who have the pedigree/qualifications to be CEO than to be a line worker. There is no chain of logic that can take you from there to the conclusion that he's more important t…

I think that's incorrect. It's not like if being a CEO was harder that many technical jobs. In fact, it's usually a whole lot easier.

It is however about the amount, you're right on that. There is 1 CEO and there are 10 000 employees. It's much easier to pay 1 CEO "a lot" than 10 000 employes "a lot". (and to become CEO you have to look good/smart/etc but you don't have to be or work hard. You can however stab people in the back in the name of capitalism all day long. I don't know many "big" CEOs who haven't done that.)

The only thing that really comes with a CEO title is the responsibility for other people's jobs. Large bonuses in that case make sense, but in general, they're already paid so well, that it's peanuts.

Being peanuts, they can afford the luxury of redistributing to employees. Don't get me wrong, I admire the gesture. But if the CEO wasn't paid so much to begin with, and bonuses weren't out of proportion, he wouldn't have done that.