Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

dailytech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 153 posts

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

#81

Post by jakejake »

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?

I agree it's a nice gesture & there's nothing negative about it. Just don't expect me to bow when you throw out a few scraps to us peasants.

I'd be more impressed by somebody who is living check-to-check donating $10 to a good cause.

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

#82

Post by marekmroz »

marekmroz wrote: post #63
johngalt wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're comparing two things which are the same. A 20% jump in efficiency per worker is precisely what CEO's are there to create.

...oftentimes by applying the "beatings will continue until morale improves" philosophy of firing teams, cutting departments, slashing r&d and expecting unpaid overtime. There, efficiency *= 1.20.

>If that works in the long run, it's great for the shareholders.

My point is that it does not work in the long run, but shareholders are sometimes interested in the short-term gains (as in improve efficiency by 20%, flip the company, not my problem)

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

#83

Post by pbz »

harryh wrote: post #64
zobzu wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peopl…

Being a CEO is way way way way way way way harder than individual contributor technical jobs. The breadth of skill and degree of dedication required to do the job well is just insane.

Sure... 2, 3, maybe 4 times harder, but not hundreds or thousands of times. The fact that we have such huge gaps is cultural, and a testament to how well they've been able to sell themselves. The gap hasn't always been this wide, and it's not the same in every country.

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

#85

Post by ww520 »

marknutter wrote: post #84

How is this any different than, for instance, Steve Jobs taking only $1 per year in CEO salary?

Steve Jobs taking $1 per year would give the benefits to the shareholders, not the employees. It would be the same if Steve Jobs gives his salary millions to the Apple employees.

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

#86

Post by rayiner »

biot wrote: post #61
delinka wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you permanently eliminate the position for one line worker, there is essentially zero impact to the company; it continues along with only a 0.01% drop of efficiency. If you permanently eliminate the CEO position, there is multiple orders of magnitude greater impact to the company. That's why the compensation for each role is different.

> That's why the compensation for each role is different.

This is wrong. It's Econ 101. Salaries are the price of labor, and like any other market, the price of labor is the result of equilibrium in the supply and demand in the labor force.

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

#87

Post by [deleted] »

eru wrote: post #80
rayiner wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing a level of indirection. Say you have a median CEO and median line workers. If you got a CEO 20% better than the median, would he be able to motivate the line workers to be 20% more efficient? Highly unlikely. I think you need a 10x median CEO to see something as huge as a 20% jump in the efficiency of line workers.

I agree that we can talk about the median CEO, because that just requires ordering. But how would you talk about a 10x CEO? That needs multiplication on CEOs, which is much harder to define in a way that makes sense.

[deleted]

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

#88

Post by xarien »

delinka wrote: post #49
rayiner wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When does a CEO get to take 2 weeks off these days? A CEO's job and life are homogeneous and while they do take vacation, I can guarantee you that very very few will disconnect him/herself completely.

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

#90

Post by biot »

delinka wrote: post #73
biot wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you permanently eliminate the position for one line worker, there is essentially zero impact to the company; it continues along with only a 0.01% drop of efficiency. If you permanently eliminate the CEO position, there is multiple orders of magnitude greater impact to the company. That's why the compensation for each role is different.

But that's not the comparison. It's CEO versus all the employees, not a single employee.

I thought the salient point was the relative compensation of the average CEO to the average employee. What insight do you gain by comparing a mass exodus of every employee to a vacation by a single CEO? Isn't it trivially obvious that if every single person in a company takes off at once, that the company is effectively stopped regardless of who you compare it to?
Post reply on HN