Comment by DangerousPie
6 years ago
I have no idea what normal CEO salaries look like as a percentage of revenue. I'm not even sure if that's the right way to measure it. But it doesn't sound crazy high to me?
And the worse your company is doing, the more important it is to find a good CEO and the harder it will be for you to attract a good one. So you can even make an argument for why CEOs that joined companies that are doing badly might be getting paid more on average.
I wondered how much it was, and did a quick search. Apparently Sundar Pichai (Alphabet) had a total comp equivalent to ~0.13% of the revenue, and Tim Cook (Apple) was at 0.05%. So Mozilla's CEO is at 3 to 10 times more than those two examples, while arguably underperforming them.
I really don't think it's that simple. Why should CEO salary depend on revenue? Should the CEO of a startup that doesn't have customers yet make $0?
Mozilla, Google and Apple are no startups.
Of course startups CEO will have different goals - company at different stages of their growth will have very different goals and tangentially they need different CEOs with different skill sets to achieve those different goals.
Fire her and hire a new CEO then. Why would you raise an under-performing CEO's takeaway ?
How do you know she is under-performing? It's not like Mozilla was profitable before she joined.