With regard to Sue, adding to the list of concerns about the sheer amount
of money is that she wasn't the executive anymore, so why was she being
paid like one?
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Gnangarra.
> I'm familiar with Bridgespan, and when I worked as a strategy
> consultant, I used the "starvation cycle" myself. It's a way of
> framing the need for improvement differently from simply insisting
> that 5% is saved each year, and instead using more meaningful
> strategic goals.
> This piece in no way explains why the WMF is in the habit of paying
> its CEO twice what the UK Government pays its Prime Minister. I doubt
> anyone believes that the WMF job is twice as stressful, delivers twice
> the value, is twice as accountable or twice as hard.
> If we were to bring some hard numbers into the WMF board to
> /benchmark/ the CEO salary decision making process, compare the WMF
> CEO package to that of charities of the same size to the WMF. Here's a
> few facts from a survey of UK charities:
> * In the 100 highest paying charities, CEOs are paid a median of $235,000.
> * Cancer Research UK have an income of $770m and pay its CEO, Sir
> Harpal Kumar, $330,000.
> * Barnardo's have an income of $400m and pay Peter Brook a salary of
> * Scope has over 3,500 employees, an income of $140m, and pay Richard
> Hawkes a salary of $200,000.
> Probably the best comparative example from this handful is Cancer
> Research UK (CRUK) as they are both in the technology and
> science/academic sector and pay an almost identical CEO salary as the
> WMF does. Their strategic goal is to find new cures for cancer
> applying leading edge science, and run a massive programme of public
> communication and education (including improving Wikipedia articles,
> which I was lucky enough to help out with!). Their direct spend on
> scientific research projects is over $165m, more than a magnitude
> larger than the WMF's spend on software development and with far, far
> greater technical and ethical challenges.
> The reason that the WMF rewards its CEO at the same prestigious level
> as CRUK, is because they are trapped in the Silicon Valley bubble and
> fixed in the belief that they must pay top executive salaries
> competing with commercial Silicon Valley IT companies, rather than
> comparing themselves to charities or educational institutions. If the
> WMF board really want to shake up their strategy, they should start
> planning to have some development and management teams in cities other
> than San Francisco, if only to unlock themselves from their current
> unrealistic group-think, and start behaving like a leading edge
> professional educational charity, rather than a for-profit "breaking
> everything is good" Silicon Valley dot com.
> On 6 June 2016 at 04:10, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > this is worth reading
> > On 5 June 2016 at 16:23, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 5 June 2016 at 02:28, Liam Wyatt <liamwy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, 5 June 2016, Greg Varnum <gvar...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >> ...
> >> > Not to put too fine a point on it... But are you saying that Sue
> >> > the most highly paid contractor to the WMF, and at a significantly
> >> > rate than when she was the actual ED, until FIVE DAYS ago? That is,
> >> > beyond any 'transition period' (and in fact longer than the
> employment of
> >> > the person who replaced her)?
> >> Yes, this jumped out for me. I can understand paying out a 12 month
> >> golden handshake on the way out, and paying a previous CEO for a few
> >> days or weeks support during handover, but continuing to pay out at an
> >> eye-watering equivalent salary of $300,000 per annum, was a
> >> super-duper bonus for Sue.
> >> However this is wrapped up in the normal "nothing to see here,
> >> move-along" WMF PR speak, these lottery prize level payouts have been
> >> a terrible, terrible deal in terms of the WMF delivering on its goals
> >> and values. I certainly did not see Sue saying anything in public to
> >> help avoid or repair any of the WMF board's strategic disasters in its
> >> highly public annus horribilis. I doubt that in truth she did much
> >> more in private, sorry, it's just not credible that the WMF has all
> >> its strategic manipulators hidden away in private rooms as if this
> >> were a court for the Borgia family.
> >> I am utterly convinced that the WMF would do exactly as well, and
> >> possibly even better, by paying a CEO slightly less than it currently
> >> pays it's head of legal, certainly it would be rather stupid to pump
> >> up the interim CEO's salary by three times to match the celebrity CEO
> >> salaries that the WMF seems to have locked itself into.
> >> Fae
> >> --
> >> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > --
> > GN.
> > President Wikimedia Australia
> > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com