Print 55 comment(s) - last by Oregonian2.. on Aug 13 at 6:42 PM

Kevin Rollins, now ex-CEO of Dell Inc.  (Source: Dell)
Former Dell CEO Kevin Rollins rolling in $48 million cash

Although Kevin Rollins is no longer the CEO of Dell, he will be receiving very large sums of money for his time with the computer maker. According to an August 8 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Rollins will receive more than $48 million in cash from his stock options.

As detailed by the SEC, "7,370,000 unexercised options that were vested at the time of [Rollins’] retirement expired 90 days after this retirement date." Specifically, Dell will pay Rollins $48,462,495 for the unexercised stock options 45 days after it files its 2007 Annual Report with the SEC, reports eWeek.

Rollins replaced Michael Dell as CEO of the company in 2004 and helped the firm to expand into many areas such as professional services. Dell also put its hands into the enthusiast level gaming market, buying customized gaming computer manufacturer Alienware in early 2006. Since then Dell has marketed its own line of gaming desktops and notebooks as well as kept the Alienware brand alive and operating independently. All wasn’t always beer and Skittles for Rollins, as in 2006 Dell lost its title as the largest PC shipment champion to Hewlett-Packard.

Since Rollins’ retirement from the company on May 4, 2007, Michael Dell has taken over the reigns as both CEO and Chairman of the Board. Rollins recently joined private investment firm TGP Capital Partners as a senior advisor.

Dell has had quite a turbulent 2007 thus far. In February, Dell was accused of secretly receiving illegal rebate kickback payments from Intel in return for exclusive deals. Then in March, Dell had to delay its 10-K filing with the SEC due to accounting inconsistencies. Just two months later, Dell was sued for allegedly deceiving customers by using "bait and switch" advertising practices to lure in new business.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Gotta be nice to be a CEO
By FITCamaro on 8/10/2007 12:16:49 PM , Rating: 5
Doesn't matter what you do, you'll still end up stinking rich even if they just have to pay to get rid of you.

RE: Gotta be nice to be a CEO
By FITCamaro on 8/10/2007 1:27:49 PM , Rating: 3
Does anyone else think that picture makes him look like he's checking out a 12 year old boy?

RE: Gotta be nice to be a CEO
By Hoeser on 8/10/2007 2:21:31 PM , Rating: 3
"Hey there Mr.Paper Boy... hope you're bringin' me some gooood news.."

RE: Gotta be nice to be a CEO
By Polynikes on 8/10/2007 10:24:22 PM , Rating: 3
Not really. What's on your mind? :)

RE: Gotta be nice to be a CEO
By S3anister on 8/11/2007 6:14:13 PM , Rating: 2
That gets the pedobear gold star of approval!

RE: Gotta be nice to be a CEO
By SandmanWN on 8/10/2007 3:22:55 PM , Rating: 5
If the guy had a decent bone in his body he should have returned every penny.

My sister worked at Dell during the accounting scandal. This guy ordered that half of any bonus money be withheld from its employees to make reparations for the loss. People in sales were told it was their faults for not working hard enough.

Its a sickening feeling to have your hard earned money withheld from you by a guy thats considered a multi-millionaire to repay a mistake by the higher-ups.

RE: Gotta be nice to be a CEO
By FITCamaro on 8/10/2007 3:30:11 PM , Rating: 5
If the guy had a decent bone in his body he should have returned every penny.

Fortunately for him....

Whats really amazing is that that $48 million was just his stock options. Who knows how much more he got.

RE: Gotta be nice to be a CEO
By Moishe on 8/10/2007 3:34:19 PM , Rating: 3
would you?
On one hand he may be corrupt, in which case he won't hand over the money.
He's not corrupt and he played the game fairly... in which case I would not hand it over (if I were him)

If he did his job and got paid, why should he feel sorry for the huge amount of cash? If I had options like that and could get them legally I'd be all over it and instead of feeling bad, I'd feel happy that I had the opportunity and the brains to recognize that opportunity. I have a feeling we all would take that if we had it handed to us.

RE: Gotta be nice to be a CEO
By SandmanWN on 8/10/2007 4:35:41 PM , Rating: 2
would you?

Uh yeah!!!! I should hope its still a typical business practice that when you do a horrible job you don't charge for the service. Michael Dell needs to send this chump back to his wife with a tag around his neck asking wheres his refund check?

If this guy accepts this money then he accepts he didn't do the job well and doesn't expect another company to come knocking any time soon.

He already received his 5 million dollar paycheck. This money smells like a cover up/keep your mouth closed kinda deal.

RE: Gotta be nice to be a CEO
By Kdawg05 on 8/10/2007 8:52:56 PM , Rating: 3
Uh yeah!!!! I should hope its still a typical business practice that when you do a horrible job you don't charge for the service.

Yeah, I'm sure that all the workers out there who are wasting an average of two hours a day while getting paid for it are going to give back 1/4 of their salary to their employers.

No? Didn't think so.

Whether he did a bad job or not, there's nothing illegal or immoral about taking money that his former employer is willing to give him according to their standard business procedures. Sure, it's a ridiculous policy that makes the already wealthy even richer, even with poor job performance, but you should be upset about the system, not one guy that happens to be benefiting from it.

RE: Gotta be nice to be a CEO
By sdsdv10 on 8/11/2007 12:21:09 AM , Rating: 4
... but you should be upset about the system, not one guy that happens to be benefiting from it.

I hope you don't mind, I will be upset with both. If people like him don't start giving the money back, then how exactly are we to expect "the system" to change. People have to change it. He could start the process.

I would also add, he doesn't deserve the money. His job was to run the company and increase share holders value. He didn't do it. If a Dell line worker putting PCs together didn't complete his/her job they would just fire them. No big payout, nothing. They would just shown them the door. Well, this guy didn't do the job given to him. I say show him the door, with nothing but a box to hold his personal stuff.

RE: Gotta be nice to be a CEO
By danrien on 8/11/07, Rating: 0
RE: Gotta be nice to be a CEO
By SandmanWN on 8/12/2007 3:16:47 PM , Rating: 2
I think you've confused yourself. Workers giving back to employers??? I'm not sure what you were smoking when you read the post but thats not the problem at hand. This guy is the employer and he was scamming his workers. His mistakes were taken out on his workers and he was getting paid for it.

If that somehow makes sense to you I got a nice job waiting for you. When I screw up I'll be sure you are the first person I rob money out of their paycheck to make up for my mistakes.

RE: Gotta be nice to be a CEO
By Kdawg05 on 8/12/2007 8:27:44 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not trying to argue that Rollins somehow deserves his money based on job performance, nor is Rollins THE employer (CEOs are still employees of the corporations they work for).

I was essentially making two points:

1) That this is standard operating procedure. He had unexercised stock options, and now he's getting paid for them. He's receiving compensation for the job he performed. The fact that his job performance was not stellar doesn't change that.

2) If you hold one person to a certain standard, you need to hold everyone to that standard. It's not just the rich that are making money that they don't necessarily deserve. People typically find it easier to decry dishonesty and greed in those few that are making big bucks rather than the millions of people who are essentially doing the same thing in smaller doses.

It's easy to say, "He should give the money back," but would you? If you were in his place, would you turn your back on $48 million? It's nice to think, "Oh, yeah, if I were he I would TOTALLY give it back," but I doubt most people would if they were in the same situation, just as most people aren't going to be giving back money that they've earned at work while wasting time.

RE: Gotta be nice to be a CEO
By SandmanWN on 8/12/2007 9:43:57 PM , Rating: 2
First off thanks for telling us how big of a low life you would be in accepting the pay off.

Secondly Rollins has previously cashed out about 39 million in stock options previously. His salary is 3/4 of a million dollars a year and cashes out about 2 million in stock options on a yearly basis.

So, In closing, if I had reaped that many millions of dollars over my long term of slowly diminishing Dells influence in the PC sector over my term as CEO the last thing I would do is accept another 40+ million in cash that I really didnt earn. But I understand if your personal character would not allow you to act similarly.

RE: Gotta be nice to be a CEO
By Kdawg05 on 8/13/2007 12:38:50 AM , Rating: 2
And thanks for showing me that I'm debating with someone who seemingly can't resist making baseless attacks on someone's character.

Where in my previous posts did I say I would accept the money? Of course, I never said that, merely pointed out that I think most people in a similar situation (regardless of what they'd like to think or say that they'd do) would accept the money. If you would do otherwise, good for you. I like to assume the best of people, but the best of people usually doesn't come out when there are millions of dollars involved, or even when smaller amounts of money are at stake.

And I stand by my original comment, that as long as this isn't some shady deal (and it's not -- it's typical practice for corporations to reward CEOs like this, even CEOs with sub-par performance), there's nothing inherently wrong with him accepting money that his employer is willing to pay him for the work that he did.

RE: Gotta be nice to be a CEO
By bfonnes on 8/11/2007 6:50:25 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe he could just give it to a pension fund for those laid off employees like in that one Jim Carey movie :)

RE: Gotta be nice to be a CEO
By Min Jia on 8/10/07, Rating: 0
RE: Gotta be nice to be a CEO
By xsilver on 8/11/2007 8:41:03 PM , Rating: 2
thats US dollars mate - not RUPEES lol

I always wonder who controls the payout amount and whether shareholders have a say... probably not - shareholders would pay him a kick up the ass.

RE: Gotta be nice to be a CEO
By Min Jia on 8/12/2007 9:36:00 AM , Rating: 2
I have US$1.2B in bank.

RE: Gotta be nice to be a CEO
By otispunkmeyer on 8/13/2007 3:52:14 AM , Rating: 2
i made $1.7B just last year

Hedge funds FTW

well for now, been a bit of hick up in that area in the last few days with people defaulting on big loans n such. wiped £86B off the UK stocks over the past few days

RE: Gotta be nice to be a CEO
By ZmaxDP on 8/13/2007 1:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
Care to share? I could use a couple of million to jump start a new business. And I've always wanted a nice fishing boat...

(kidding - sort of)

RE: Gotta be nice to be a CEO
By Chadder007 on 8/10/2007 11:11:51 PM , Rating: 1
Just think of how many English speaking Support Technicians that could have paid for over here in the U.S. for the ones they shipped the jobs off to in India that you can't freaking understand.
Corporate Greed FTL

Does he deserve it?
By Amiga500 on 8/10/2007 1:11:35 PM , Rating: 3

Does anyone? In my opinion - no-one deserves such obscence 'salaries'/bonuses call them what you will.

Considering in June of this year that Dell have said they will lay-off 10% of its workforce (thats around 8000 workers) the thought that Rollins somehow should get this payout would be met with disbelief by me.

RE: Does he deserve it?
By Bioniccrackmonk on 8/10/2007 1:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
I 100% agree with your point of him being paid that much money while they are firing employees, I mean laying off. I bet his payout probably doesn't add up to all those employee's salaries for a full year, but I could be wrong based on teh people being layed off, fired. Oh wait, it won't be the exec's that get canned so I am probably right.

Also, I like the picture for the headline, yes I would like to stay for lunch.

RE: Does he deserve it?
By FITCamaro on 8/10/2007 1:25:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I always think its crap that the high ups at some of these companies are getting multi-million dollar bonuses while at the same time they're announcing that they have to have layoffs because they didn't meet revenue forecasts.

I will always stand ready to be CEO of any company for a year for a mere $200,000 a year. I mean, how much worse than some of these guys can I do?

Employee - "Sir here's an idea that will make us millions."

CEO - "Yes....thats good. Now what I'm going to do is change it so that it will cost us millions and then say its my idea. And I'll still get my $10 million bonus this year. I'll just fire you to make up the difference."

Employee - "....."

RE: Does he deserve it?
By Oregonian2 on 8/10/2007 3:03:49 PM , Rating: 2
I will always stand ready to be CEO of any company for a year for a mere $200,000 a year. I mean, how much worse than some of these guys can I do?

If your talent includes the ability to negotiate your way into them accepting your resume as one that shows your ability to do as well, then I think you'll probably get that job (although that salary may be a bit high, see below).

But do note that you're competing with others like Steve Jobs who I think has a salary per year of something under $5. Think it's only a couple dollars in fact (not million, as in a couple hundred cents). Sometimes that $200K salary you're asking for would be considered very high pay, I think Gates got less than that too (there were a lot of people that made more than he did salary wise). The stock options and such (like in this article) often, if not most of the time, is the big portion of the negotiated compensation (because it ties their compensation to performance -- that is, the market price of company stock).

RE: Does he deserve it?
By FITCamaro on 8/10/2007 3:39:59 PM , Rating: 2
He doesn't make any official salary per year because he has so much stock and gets more of it that it doesn't matter. The guys who founded Google only make $1 a year according to the payroll. But they get stock which is worth far more.

They do it that way because while income tax on actual income is 35% for how high their salaries are. Capital gains tax (which you pay for income earned on stocks) is only 15%.

I follow the Peter Griffin approaches to negotiation. "Cmon........" and "Anyone who doesn't want <insert thing here> is gay."

So in this case, anyone who doesn't want me as CEO of their corporation is gay.

RE: Does he deserve it?
By Oregonian2 on 8/10/2007 5:14:56 PM , Rating: 2
That's part of it (and only for long term capital gains, not short term). However, when given options, the option price usually is the value of the stock when the option is issued so one ONLY makes money off of how much the stock has gone up after that point. If it goes down, one made diddly-squat.

Regarding the guys who started Google, that isn't stock options and it wasn't given them by the company. It was their initial ownership on the dining room table (or wherever) that gave them that stock, and it would have been a 'stock grant' category thing, not an option. They gave those shares to themselves at that table.

Also it's not even easy for options as one might think. Because that lower tax is only on LONG term gains (like over a year) and that the year only starts AFTER one exercises an option, to get long term gains one has to cough up the money to buy the stock at that option price -- but not be able to sell the stock for a year to get the long term gains. IOW if you're given a million shares of option , you need to come up with a million times the market price (when it was given to you) to exercise the shares and you need to wait a year to sell it (where hopefully its price doesn't fall below what you just bought it for) to get long term gains. Most insider trading lists I've seen seem to have folk do what I've done (but on a micro-nano scale as a "principal engineer", not even a manager) in the past. And that's to exercise the option and then pay for the stock by selling it (basically all done at near once). Short term gains, full tax!

And even then AMT can get'cha too and really make a mess of things even when you've no actual money yet.

Nothing is ever simple, even simple things. How's that for a quote. :-)

RE: Does he deserve it?
By bfonnes on 8/11/2007 2:18:16 PM , Rating: 2
Look on the bright side, if we didn't have stuff like this then maybe we wouldn't have Dilbert :)

RE: Does he deserve it?
By AntiM on 8/10/2007 3:53:34 PM , Rating: 2
No he doesn't deserve it. He ruined Dell's reputation for quality and customer service. Not to mention the fact that employees were treated like crap. All he deserves is a swift kick in the nuts. I think Michael Dell took back the reins just before the company sunk to a point of no return. I really don't know though, Dell might not ever regain it's reputation.

RE: Does he deserve it?
By Moishe on 8/10/2007 3:53:46 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure that my salary or yours is "obscene" to some people all over the world. That doesn't make it wrong, or immoral, or illegal, or anything negative. Unless he gained it unjustly, it just is what it is.

I generally agree with most of the statements here about CEOs getting a fortune while layoffs occur, BUT a lot of this is simply a matter of perspective. That's a lot of money and whether he earned it or not is a matter of perspective as well. I bet I work as hard as he does and I only make a infinitesimal amount compared to him. It's not really unfair, it just seems so to everyone below.

RE: Does he deserve it?
By bob661 on 8/11/07, Rating: -1
RE: Does he deserve it?
By ToeCutter on 8/13/2007 11:34:18 AM , Rating: 2
It's not really unfair, it just seems so to everyone below.

"Everyone below" equals about 100% of everyone reading this story.

I dunno, any multi-millionaires out there cruising the DT forums?

Best case it's 98% of every American living today.

So this loser does his job better than 98% of everyone else in America, by retiring?

There's some perspective for you, Johnny.

RE: Does he deserve it?
By ZmaxDP on 8/13/2007 3:00:48 PM , Rating: 1
Since when has pay been tied to how hard you work? Last time I checked some of the jobs that require (in my opinion) the most effort receive very little pay. I know that the guy building the stuff I design works a lot harder than I do. That doesn't mean one way or another that he should get paid more. So let's drop the "he doesn't work hard enough to deserve that kind of pay" crap.

Pay, in this country, usually relates to responsibility, and therefore to risk. While I agree that he probably isn't working any "harder" than 98% of Americans, I would be hard pressed to find someone with more "responsibility." As CEO he is directly responsible for everyone else at that organization. He is also directly responsible for the performance of the whole company, it's stock value, etc... He's responsible for more than 98% of Americans, and I think that's being very cautious. Write down a list of U.S. corporations larger than Dell, and then find out who their CEOs are, and then divide by the current population, and that is the percentage that has more responsibility tied to their jobs. The inverse (minus one person) is the rest of us.

The irony is that he has so little control over most of what he is responsible for. Think about a post last week about the managers of game stop stores getting fired if one of their employees sells an M rated game to a minor. There were some people saying it wasn't fair because the manager couldn't control his employees, or that he couldn't be there 24-7. So what? Said person is the manager, they get paid more than the sales staff because they take on the responsibility of the conduct of said sales staff. Fairness isn't even an issue. When you manage people you are responsible for their actions on the job regardless of your abilities to control those people. When you talk about a CEO of a company like Dell go ahead and multiply that level of responsibility by several thousand. Plus, throw in the responsibility for the stock price (which is barely if at all controlled by any direct actions of the CEO) and the performance of the company (which is also not directly controlled by a CEO). All he can do is manage the people directly under his purview, and hope to god they do their jobs with the people under their purview, all the way down the chain to the newest employee on a summer internship. Do you honestly think that this guy made a single decision on his own that lead the company where it is today? Chances are he didn't. Chances are that his employees told him what they thought the best options where, and he listened to them - which most good managers do. Do you think he even knew about the "bait-and-switch" thing? Doubtful. Chances are some guy making updates to the website thought that the difference between a processor with virtualization and one without was so minor it didn't warrant a change to the website. Or, that some guy putting together the new hardware specs forgot to even inform the web team that the changes were made. Or that some poor intern just made a typo. How often does it happen to us on this forum where someone thinks they know the specs of a product, posts them, but made a little mistake that either they didn't notice or that seemed so inconsequential that they didn't bother correcting it. Then some other anal retentive techie gets on and blasts said person for lying about the product's specs. Rarely are these kind of mistakes intentional, or made with any kind of malice. Mistakes happen, you should judge a company by their efforts to correct the mistakes that do happen every bit as much as you should judge them by how many mistakes they make in the first place. In reference to this article, so there were a lot of mistakes made, and Dell took a nose dive. I don't know that these mistakes even lead to said nose dive. What if it was the battery scare that no one at Dell was directly responsible for. What if it was a general market recession in their main industry. What if it is a result of Dell's expansion into other markets where they are still paying their entrance dues and haven't made it to a point where they'll see good returns. Hell, most of these factors (which are a hell of a lot more likely to cause major stock fluctuations at a major corporation than any CEO's actions) are completely beyond the CEO's influence or control, or anyone else's for that matter. (Not to mention that they are totally unpredictable.) There are few jobs that rely more upon good luck than being a CEO, and that is why these jobs pay so high. You could take a CEO position, have the market crash, and get blamed for it all thus ruining your reputation. You're unemployable now. You better pray you got paid well so you can survive the next few years while the market recovers and your reputation re-builds itself as awareness of the real cause of your "failure" surfaces. That is, of course, a SUPER simplistic version. These guys are responsible for so many unpredictable, uncontrollable factors, that I can't even begin to suggest a good way to evaluate their performance. Stock value certainly isn't a good one, but it is the favored one. Market share might be better, but even then it is hard to make a good correlation. Worse, the lag between decisions on the CEO level and their effects are so long that it is nearly impossible for a CEO to get any feedback on the effectiveness of their decisions before it is too late. In out current corporate culture, it only takes one screw-up and you're out! How many mistakes do you make in a day at work? A week, a year? Hopefully not that many, but your still make them. Why does no one care as long as you only make a reasonable amount? Because the costs of your mistakes are low, and so are the consequences. What risks do you take then? What are you responsible for that you can't control? This is why you don't get paid 48 million in stock options. Being the CEO of dell is so bloody risky that no one in their right mind would take the job unless it paid that well. I sure wouldn't. You want me to put my neck on the chopping block for what I can't control then you better bloody well pay me a fortune so that when one of those things screws the company over and I didn't see it coming, I can continue to live my life after getting axed, and then having my name bashed over all the tech forums I frequent, and every single person who lost their job because of my lack of ESP and Omnipotence decides to hate me till the day I die (or they do). Why? Because these people don't have a clue what being a CEO means, what the responsibilities are, and what you should reasonably expect out of someone with those responsibilities.

So, as a result, we've got people arguing he did a shitty job and thus doesn't deserve the money which was provided for in his contract regardless of performance. Yeah, this guy totally doesn't deserve a dime...

Now, we can agree that it should have been performance related, or that it should have been less money, but to say he shouldn't take it is flat out naive. It shows you have no understanding of the situation, no ability to try and understand someone else's perspective, and it shows you probably lack the decency to put yourself in their shows and be honest about what you'd do if you were there.

good for him!
By Moishe on 8/10/07, Rating: 0
RE: good for him!
By SandmanWN on 8/10/2007 12:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
Successful you say????

The company declined throughout this guys entire term as CEO. Not to mention the accounting scandal. WTF are you talking about?

RE: good for him!
By Oregonian2 on 8/10/2007 2:54:53 PM , Rating: 2
The company declined throughout this guys entire term as CEO

Declined? These are the numbers (in thousands) for his years at Dell:

Ending - Total Revenue
Feb-06 55,908,000
Jan-05 49,205,000
Jan-04 41,444,000

(These are the most recent numbers from yahoo)

RE: good for him!
By SandmanWN on 8/10/2007 3:10:29 PM , Rating: 2
Those numbers are meaningless without a larger perspective.

When you compare them to each other they show a slowdown in growth over his tenure as CEO. Now compare those to the previous CEO and it shows an even greater slowdown. Looking at those yahoo graphs the company has been flat-lined for years now.

In any case its not all about the numbers but also the image of the company that has taken a nose dive. Accounting scandals, HP taking the lead in the consumer market, and some major lawsuits over questionable business practices with Intel. Unless you consider these a successful run as CEO...

RE: good for him!
By Oregonian2 on 8/10/2007 5:49:54 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry I didn't know we were talking politician speak (where increased spending at lower than the previous rate of increase is called a "budget cut"). I'm not really fluent in that gobbly-gook, excuse my awkwardness.

HP taking the lead was because they grew faster than Dell. That means they are doing even better than Dell, doesn't mean Dell is doing bad. The objective for Dell isn't to beat HP, it's to make Dell better. HP did some things like buying Compaq to increase their revenue, btw, not necessarily gain because they did something smart. If HP is the "ideal", HP'd former head honcha is available to be hired, I think .

As to the scandals, I suspect the practices being objected to were going on even prior to his taking over. Don't think their "Intel Only" bit started with him and kickbacks -- if anything they started using AMD during his reign (I think).

RE: good for him!
By SandmanWN on 8/12/2007 3:21:02 PM , Rating: 2
Too many "I thinks" going on in your statement. Since you don't have a better understanding its time to move on.

RE: good for him!
By ToeCutter on 8/13/2007 11:40:27 AM , Rating: 2
Too many "I thinks" going on in your statement. Since you don't have a better understanding its time to move on.

Wow, that's a compelleing argument....NOT.

You failed to mention that under Rollins leadership there were accounting inconsistencies and accuisations of poor business practices (bait and switch) which he surely should have been aware, considering how responsible he's been.

It doesn't take a doctorate degree to figure these guys are getting paid ALOT for some pretty poor performance, kinda like your feeble attempt to defend these ridiculous wages.

RE: good for him!
By Oregonian2 on 8/13/2007 6:42:41 PM , Rating: 2
Too many "I thinks" going on in your statement. Since you don't have a better understanding its time to move on.

Good point. Thinking is not a good thing to do when posting here. I agree with you. Gets me into trouble.

RE: good for him!
By derdon on 8/10/2007 12:45:10 PM , Rating: 1
The responsibility argument is bs. As you can see almost daily, the consequence if you fuck up is next to nothing. So what motivation does one have to take the responsibility serious? Remind yourself that you're working for a company that you (as CEO) work for like anybody else in that company! You haven't found it and you haven't grown with it.

RE: good for him!
By ToeCutter on 8/13/2007 11:50:47 AM , Rating: 1
The responsibility argument is bs. As you can see almost daily, the consequence if you fuck up is next to nothing. So what motivation does one have to take the responsibility serious? Remind yourself that you're working for a company that you (as CEO) work for like anybody else in that company! You haven't found it and you haven't grown with it.

Right on, derdon.

I've been walked to the door several times, despite loyal service (resisting jumps) and demonstrating substative revenue procurement, with margins well into the thirties, on HARDWARE no less! I've done just as well on the services side. And each and every time, the call came without a moments warning.

When the axe falls, it falls without prejudice. X number of dollars need to be cut, it matters little from where their cut.

Or, perhaps I've just worked for some bad CEOs...

Nonetheless, the only thing I've learned from nearly 10 years experience is the following:

1. Loyalty in IT is no value whatsoever. It is folly and has little value to employers.
2. Generating revenue will not save you. Looking busy in a really nice suit is a far more effective strategy.

Outsourcing Pays
By Shadowmaster625 on 8/10/2007 3:59:36 PM , Rating: 2
It is nice to know that sending jobs overseas is such a lucrative career opportunity. He is like a big ugly fly feeding on the carcass of america. Hey here's a brilliant idea: why dont we all be just like him! Let's just burn the country to the ground and maybe we'll all get rich. Dumb [censored]

RE: Outsourcing Pays
By bfonnes on 8/11/2007 2:29:36 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure that they were already outsourcing before he became CEO, and there's a company where I live that does some work for Dell, tech support, that is, so, I believe that they have started to bring some of it back stateside. Although, I think just about everybody outsources now days. In most states if you have welfare benefits, the customer service for those is outsourced, too, sometimes even internationally as well!

Big surprise
By Polynikes on 8/10/2007 10:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
CEOs are all millionaires, provided the company they work for is large enough. They always get stock options and get rich. This is how corporate America works.

RE: Big surprise
By Queonda on 8/11/2007 10:34:03 AM , Rating: 2
As someone who knows Kevin Rollins personally, I can tell you all that he's not a corrupt person. I don't know anything about his business side, but he's a great man.

It's like mom always said...
By bighairycamel on 8/10/2007 12:15:21 PM , Rating: 2
It's just like mama always said, crime doesn't pay.... oh wait........

By WileCoyote on 8/10/2007 4:27:30 PM , Rating: 2
And that's why I setup my own business and would never work for a corporation.

RE: Yup
By Oregonian2 on 8/10/07, Rating: 0
By Mithan on 8/10/2007 9:12:33 PM , Rating: 2
yay for corporate greed.

By ToeCutter on 8/13/2007 11:29:55 AM , Rating: 2
Dell slips a rung while under this guys leadership and he banks 8x his annual salary?

The sub-prime market is crumbling because mortgage companies, *GASP*, were issuing loans that couldn't possibly be paid back.

Health care companies pay billion dollar salaries to CEOs, then deny life-saving treatment to policy holders who've paid into the system for YEARS just a save $30k of profit.

Funny how years after their demise, some of that old school Soviet propaganda against the US is ringing true these days.

Sad part....
By afkrotch on 8/10/2007 12:57:48 PM , Rating: 1
You know what the sad part is? Some ppl actually felt sorry for him, when he first left the company with $5 million. Seriously, $5 million dollars for running the company for 3 years and not doing the greatest job. Course, not the worst job either.

Still, $5 million. That's a hell of a lot of $$.

“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki