If Page thought Rubin deserved this bonus, he should have taken it to the compensation committee in advance of making the award. Of course, then there would be the risk that they would say no ...
In practice that idealistic oversight which such a process is supposed to bring about weren’t being followed by the board regardless. If they did it without also caring then I don’t see how the investors or public are better off for it, other than to check a checkbox.
It’s certainly useful for finger pointing later on but that doesn’t mean Page would have acted differently had they went through the process.
If they find it necessary to observe the process for ‘risk management’ then fine. But it has to still be done earnestly and to be relevant here it has to be clear this was the stopgap or protection layer needed in that situation, particularly for dealing with sexual assault allegations.
Anyone else would have been fired for pulling this stunt. Firing the co-founder of Google for breaking the rules - well, I guess he called their bluff.
In a universe where you forfeit compensation because of misconduct.
As a more extreme example: say it is agreed that a trader gets to keep 10% of the profits they make for the company. The trader misappropriates funds but manages to make $1bn. Do you the trader is owed $100m bonus?
That's probably not a signal you'd like to send.
2.) It's irrelevant that he built a billion dollar business. He was well compensated throughout his time at Google, he knew the terms of his compensation package and presumably was fine with it given that he didn't leave voluntarily. This is a case where he was given an enormous compensation package AFTER a crime was discovered that is directly related to his job function. If you lead a team, your function is to lead it well. Hitting on your subordinates and worse is NOT leading it well, regardless of the success of that team.
He should have been fired, for cause, with zero severance. Google should have accepted the inevitable lawsuit. Stand up for your values even if you lose in court, otherwise they're meaningless.
I'm tired of assholes being rewarded and worshipped in the valley. It is possible to not be a horrible person and still accomplish great things. And if it's not, then it's probably not worth the great things if you lose your ethics in the process.
Was it proven that the crime was actually committed? or simply alleged?
Because most people are reasonable, intelligent, and capable of recognizing the difference between Rubin's disgusting actions, and an imaginary frame-job wherein managers withhold rewards from other managers in order to save shareholders a few basis points of value.
Turns out people are very happy to reward results. No one needs to do everything them self.
Back when I worked at Google, often when something new was announced at TGIF (even seemingly minor features), they'd have slides crediting everyone who helped, and it went on and on like movie credits.
My opinion is that Rubin deserves to be awarded (with a proper company policy to prevent misuse of funds, nepotism etc).
But also deserves to be fired and punished for misconduct (if it is proven to have occurred). These two are not mutually exclusive. The rest is all fluff about how the public perceives a company's culture.
It's kind of like Larry's way of saying: "No hard feelings, Andy -- we know these things happen."
Now I have not gone through all the news on this, I don't have the time. My point is that the presumption of innocence is baked into our legal framework (morally, legally and philosophically) and Andy (last I recall) has not admitted to, been charged with nor convicted of any crime. So in theory, the "issues" that I suspect you are referring could arguably be moot.
From LP's perspective (and I can only speculate what that could be), I can see the challenge in justifying withholding a compensation package from someone who did in fact create tremendous value for you knowing that while there has been ample time to press charges for his alleged crimes no charges have been pressed.
Is an accusation that is not followed through enough to justify reneging on a commitment made? Is sleeping with someone you work with enough to renege on a commitment made? Tough questions that I don't have the answer to. Anecdotally, I live in NYC and have 3 Google couples in my apartment building and none of them are the same age (so presumably, there may or may not be some title / comp/ role differential).
Anyway, not so black and white in my opinion.
What does it say to your employees when they know that the higher up the ladder you are, the less accountable you are if you screw up?
What does it say for a company to decline to enforce+defend its values in open court when it's really pressed?
Google has spent so much PR and money to convince employees that they are different from other companies. They are not. It is a hard pill to swallow for many starry-eyed employees who drank the cool-aid. Company has to fight tooth and nail to keep up the pretense before everyone internalizes that, "The emperor has no clothes".
I believe it has less to do with being well resourced and more to do with keeping internal politics and corporate secrets out of public court records
EDIT: clarification about shareholder suit
Then come back to look at this report.
That's how people would then react.
Here’s more detail on how the whole thing shook out. Basically, he used the $150MM grant as a bargaining chip to settle for $90MM in return for resigning. This award was only given when he was already under investigation for misconduct - if this was really a reward for creating Android, Page could have handed it to him any time in the other 8.5 years that he worked at Google.
People are fallible and sometimes show poor judgement. I get that. Just curious how does one come out of this unscathed. Will Google HR use PR techniques to protect Larry's aura at Google. Normal people usually get fired. Founders it seems are untouchable, especially at Google. Will be fascinating to see how all of this plays out.
And, anyone who's a prominent "mascot" for a tech giant just gets a lot of unnecessarily personalized hate. Why not lie low and pick & choose where to influence things internally, if you have that luxury?
How might Page come out of "this" unscathed? Well, I'm not sure to the board or stockholders, he's done anything wrong here.
Those operating under a sort of "just world" assumption might wish Rubin suffers more for the reported managerial misdeeds. In practice, if he was promised giant compensation for the giant impact his projects have had on Google – and would have received this or larger compensation under the prior working assumption of continued employment – then pulling that back from Rubin could be an impractical battle for Google.
Rubin might be willing to fight the allegations, in court, down to the last detail in a manner that could cost Google even more than this package. Also, Rubin knows all the proprietary details of Google's mobile strategy & forthcoming technologies. He's perhaps the one technologist in the world with the most knowledge and ability to launch an outside threat to Android's dominance.
What the fuck does "credibility" have to do with anything? I trade my skill/labor for money...who cares who the CEO/Founder is?
> Will they follow this leader?
He isn't leading a crusade...he's just a dude that founded the company that is my current employer...big deal
> Will they consider him authentic?
Who cares if he is authentic or not? I don't pay my mortgage with my CEO's authenticity...
> He is still an example of what great leadership is all about?
Not sure, don't care...
I think you're dramatizing this whole Larry's aura thing...
I have a feeling this will always be a bit of a grey area out of pure practicality. But there seems to be a big push these days for immediate punishment, or everything gets the brakes put on, as soon as there is an allegation. Which considering the countless examples of failed convictions and direct examples of wrongful convictions (google is full of examples) this seems like a very dangerous road to go down.
Not sure what happens in the US, but in England even the courts behave differently from each other. The criminal court uses "beyond all reasonable doubt" while family courts use "balance of probabilities".
A man can be found not guilty at criminal trial, and still have his children removed by family court because the finding of fact session at family court decides he more likely than not did the things he is accused of.
A private organisation is free to do what they like, so long is it complies with the law and with the contracts they've drawn up.