Apparently United won't take back bonuses even when it's CEO stepped down during a federal corruption investigation, and claims it's because it's not the normal industry practice and would make it hard to recruit top talent.
I'd think top talent would, you know, behave ethically, and not, for example create a special mostly empty flight that's convenient for a politician just to get a hanger in Newark approved.
> CEO's are much more often psychopaths than average.
I'm betting you can't back that up with a significant study that provides actual proof of that common claim. I've seen this statement made routinely for two decades online and have never once seen it supported with anything concrete.
I find that hard to believe. Surely they're MUCH more likely to be psychopaths. It's almost the job description, at least under late stage capitalism in a declining society :)
I'd want hiring and compensation tied to behaving ethically, if I was on United's Board. I consider someone a better CEO if they don't become the subject of a federal corruption investigation and have to step down.
He also seems to have tanked customer satisfaction ratings. He was CEO of UAL from the beginning of the continental united merger in October 2010 to September 8, 2015. Here's a relevant article. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/business/despite-shake-up...
Just because more CEOs are psychopaths doesn't mean that psychopaths are better at doing the work of CEOs.
Frankly many CEOs seem to favor short term gains that benefit themselves and their stock option grants over improving quality and long term growth. I don't know that this guy is a psychopath, but I'm not interested in flying United if I can help it.
I didn't mention psychopaths, however you implied a positive correlation between ethical behavior of CEO's and being top talent; my questioning that implication doesn't imply the opposite, it could be there is no correlation in either direction.
The reality is there is opportunity to make money by breaking the law. Fines/punishment are too often not great enough to deter law breaking even in the even that the perpetrator is caught, let alone the fact that there is a chance they won't get caught.
We'll never be able to weed out "bad people, so the best solution would be for the government to take a stronger stance and corporate law breaking and to dole out much bigger fines.
However, then we have the same problem with many CEO's/senior management in a revolving door with government/lobbying. So we've got another buddy-buddy system that ensures the .1%+ almost never have to be held accountable for their poor actions.
I'd think top talent would, you know, behave ethically, and not, for example create a special mostly empty flight that's convenient for a politician just to get a hanger in Newark approved.