"If they are good at being ruthlessly selfish for themselves they might be good at being ruthlessly selfish for the company as well."
Makes me wonder if the opposite could become fashionable: "I trust myself to fly without the golden parachute, you might want to make that part of your consideration". At first glance that sounds quite compelling to me, but on the other hand, would I feel safer or would I feel less safe with a Taxi driver who does not bother putting on the seat belt? I think my answer would be less safe, event though a part of me wishes to be one who'd feel safer.
Speaking from personal experience, execs (most of them) are anything but risk takers. They are good wheeler-dealers, know how to navigate the land-mine filled org-chart to get things done. Not too different from civil servants. Those who develop risk appetite won't stay at such big orgs, they either go work at a startup or start on their own.
So over a period (FB has been around for like 15 years now) an org accumulates extremely risk averse execs.
Yeah, but that's a problem for the owners. Who are big boys, and can probably navigate this conflict of interest out without us.
Or if they want to keep pissing away their money, they can keep hiring clowns that ruin their companies, and then pull the ripcord. It's their money on the line, not mine.
Makes me wonder if the opposite could become fashionable: "I trust myself to fly without the golden parachute, you might want to make that part of your consideration". At first glance that sounds quite compelling to me, but on the other hand, would I feel safer or would I feel less safe with a Taxi driver who does not bother putting on the seat belt? I think my answer would be less safe, event though a part of me wishes to be one who'd feel safer.