Why is the board not held accountable for fostering the atmosphere via pressure on the CEO then? So the buck ultimately passes to them, they had every chance to rectify the situation, including replacing the C-suites if they don’t think the current ones are fit for the job?
I know, they just think of the shareholders and their pockets, but that’s my point: If you get money when your decisions make the company more profitable, maybe your decisions should lose you money when they do the opposite.
And specifically, I mean long-term. Not just based on share-price. You meddled with the company. If it tanks, you held X% of their money for Y% of the time, that’s how much you’re in the hole for now as your decisions were ultimately responsible for that percentage of the total decision space cash the company ever had in its time.
Plus, I don’t think that excuses CEOs from having 0 integrity. Yeah they could get voted to be replaced, but that doesn’t excuse it. Correct me if I’m wrong, but as an analogy, soldiers are supposed to refuse inhuman orders, no? Just that the board tells them to ruin 1900 people’s lives doesn’t mean they get a clean bill for the moral implications of being the one to pull the trigger on that.
Pluuuuuuus… isn’t it the CEO who would make the decision to take a company private again? So they could always reverse course if they mind the shareholders meddling too much?