On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:11:46 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T 
wrote:

>On 3 Jun, 17:56, John B  wrote:
>> On 3 Jun, 17:46, Chris  wrote:
>>
>> > On 3 Jun, 16:12, unrealpoli...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > Well, yes. If we take the Peter Principle as accurate, then in a world
>> > > which could sack anyone just because they were grossly incompetent,
>> > > then almost noone would have a job.
>>
>> > Well definitely no, he broke the specific terms of his contract.
>>
>> Brian Cooke did, Andrew Lazala didn't. That's why the former was fired
>> and the latter was paid off.
>>
>
>Quite. Dismissing someone for not being very good isn't easy - "I
>wasn't very good because my manager wasn't very good / my instructions
>and guidance weren't very good / my underlings weren't very good / the
>whole company isn't very good", though of course said person isn't
>likely to admit they weren't very good in the first place.
>
Which indeed they might not be but that doesn't always mean that they
are to blame for what has gone wrong. In some cases the question can
arise how/why someone allegedly incompetent was recruited and/or
placed in a position beyond their capabilities.

>That's not to say that I think it's at all right that departing execs
>like Mr Lazala get these massive pay-outs when they and/or their
>organisation has been performing shabbily. But then again I can't
>really comprehend the logic whereby some corporate execs receive an
>annual salary of millions. 'Tis a mad world. Unless John B can
>persuade me otherwise?