Comments on: Does Ellison deserve to be No. 1?

By: Seth Miller

Seth Miller — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:08:28 +0000

Did I miss something, or are we still in a free market. CEOs are not omnipotent and they don’t lock their employees and share holders in a cage and force them to work or invest. There is not a minute number of CEOs in the world. But there are a minute number of GOOD CEOs and Ellison has many times over proven his worth.

What determines if Ellison deserves $193 million? How about the thousands of families of employees or millions of families that in some way or another benefit from Oracle’s products putting food on their table. Would Ellison continue to perform at 100% if he made $192 million? Is it worth it to find out?

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 14 May 2008 16:00:59 +0000

I think that all public companies should adopt what AFLAC has done. Shareholders and the Board of Directors voted to pay their CEO, as well as some of the other mission critical executives, based on company performance. I won’t pretend to know all of the specifics but this is probably quantified by measuring a combination of stock market performance and some other key performance indicators that might be specific to measuring success within their industry. If more companies paid executives like this then we probably wouldn’t have ever had debacles like Microsoft Vista, the Windows ME of this decade.

By: Yves Roy

Yves Roy — Wed, 14 May 2008 15:15:11 +0000

I would add to the CEO evaluation criteria the market share of there products, if one year they have 34% and then a few years later they have 75% of market share, it shows they are becoming the standard in there domain. Of course, the company must still be financialy successful.

Yves