Devils advocate: you have to pay a top exec more if the company looks like its main product is in decline. Plus 2.4m/year isn't crazy in the scheme of tech salaries - that exec could potentially take other roles that pay even more.
SV companies relocate development but never the top brass to Europe as they would lose their pay, status and network.
Believe it or not, just like with dating and real estate, your monetary value is more dependent on where you are rather than how good you are. Shocking, I know.
When Mitchell was given a raise for no reason, it is a sign of corruption in Mozilla board.
https://usanewssite.com/news/the-unconventional-ceo-of-33-3-...
[0] https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/200...
For that kind of negative growth? No, of course not.
> In its fiscal year ending January 31, 2019, for example, Snowflake had revenue of $96.7 million. A year later that number was $264.7 million, or growth of around 150% at scale.
(If you look at a company's share price, you will see a drop roughly equivalent to the dividend per share each time dividends are paid.)
If he would do that, maybe better leadership would improve Mozillas situation.
Admittedly, Baker specifically got her role by being "promoted" from a Netscape lawyer and then playing a role in the creation of Mozilla, so my complaint doesn't quite apply. I'd still see letting her go and promoting someone to fill her place as a better alternative to the pay raise.
Whether they need someone that expensive is up to the organization to decide.
What about having a decent base salary, and a bonus of extra millions if your results align with the organization goals?