Foo - Hypothetical Situation

You’re a CEO of a company that employs 2200 people. You make $280,000.00 a year with a annual bonus of $100,000.00 - $150,000.00 and many other perks. The company is going through some tight cost cuts and the morale is very low. Would you donate your annual bonus back to the company?

Wait, I wasn't told there was going to be any math.

I would think that if my bonus was negative 50K I would donate it back to the company regardless.

Since most people tend to live at or near their salary level, I would venture to say that sadly I would not. However, if I felt like the company's survival was in question, I probably would.

I think most people come to look on bonuses, etc. as part of their salary, not as perk. To most, giving it back would be taking a pretty hefty paycut in their minds.

Is this a publicly traded company where the SEC can get involved and the CEO could face jail time?

I would first learn how to spell situation.

Then contemplate playing around with sums of money more than 10 dollars.

The CEO of a company that size is only pulling down a quarter mil? Depending on where the company is based, and the personal lifestyle of the CEO, that might barely cover living expenses. The bonus could be a necessity to him/her.


If it was me? Percentage cuts are percentage cuts, across the board. I've worked for companies where the top brass took the same percentage bonus cut as everyone else did. I'd like to think I could maintain that same level of integrity.

I would first learn how to spell situation.

Then contemplate playing around with sums of money more than 10 dollars.

Do you think a $200,000+ CEO would know how to spell it properly? :D

Are the company problems the result of the CEO actions/inaction? If so, probably not, since I'll soon be fired anyway.

Is it just the economy and industry conditions? Again, probably not, I'll still get fired.

But the board should certainly make adjustments to the bonus structure.

You have the company take out a massive loan and buy back as much stock as you
can to drive up the price. You then sell all your stock, and exercise your golden parachute option when the company tanks.

Read recently that that had become popular.

So nice of you to point out my error…………….Pheard.


Can a Mod please correct the spelling it the title of this thread. Thank you.



This company is non-profit company the earnings it makes is over 45 million and is rolled back into its programs.

Do you think a $200,000+ CEO would know how to spell it properly? :D

We can only hope. *bows head*

You’re a CEO of a company that employs 2200 people. You make $280,000.00 a year with a annual bonus of $100,000.00 - $150,000.00 and many other perks. The company is going through some tight cost cuts and the moral is very low. Would you donate your annual bonus back to the company?

Depends on how much the wife spends....

ok seriously, I would think a company of that size would have an ownership comittee or board of directors to assist in controlling that stuff ;)....

umm it depends on the extent of his job and his involvement. A failing company should have adjusted salaries to help the company. But then again, would the union allow pay cuts to assist a failing company through tough times?

I think it would certainly be good for morale. However, it would also depend on why you work for the company to begin with, why it's in trouble, and what your own values are.

If people are really feeling the pain of cost cuts, it seems that the brass should be too. There's more to leadership than telling everyone else where to sacrifice. Life at the top might be tough, but when you get right down to it, everyone has some difficult things to deal with. There's a lot to be said for having the whole team go through good and bad times together.

However, if you were hired because it was a screwed up situation and they needed a miracle worker to absorb a huge amount of risk while stressing yourself emotionally and physically to do what others could not, I don't think there's an ethical problem with keeping the benefits unless it bothers you.

There are a lot of variables in this equation:

Is the CEO spending a lot of personal money trying to get funding and getting his company some mindshare among investors?

Is the CEO doing his job of navigating the company, or is he out to lunch as things start tanking?

Did the CEO get funding for the company, or is he riding on previous corporate officer coattails? If a CEO has scored good funding deals for a company, they may deserve their salary, even if the company is not doing that hot at the moment.

A good CEO has to do a lot of things. For example, he has to explain to investors why they shouldn't completely sell off all company stock and run, if sales did not make their quarterly numbers.

There are a lot of CEOs who don't deserve to even have jobs, much less six digit incomes. Then there are CEOs who are spending 100 hours a week, knee deep in reports from every corporate division trying to keep shareholders happy, and VC guys interested in plunking down cash.