I'm guessing the "evolution" of their leadership isn't going to involve their CEO taking a cut to her seven million dollars salary?
From the 990s, it seems Mitchell took out $32,683,642 over the eight years from 2016 to 2023. With 2024 included, she could well top $38M -- not too shabby!
See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43112590. 2024 will be the last big comp year for Mitchell.
But from a strictly business standpoint, it’s a bit of an absurd position
But now every company thinks they can force everything on customers (idiotic ideas like "self-care"), the government, or even just the environment, usually doing enormous damage for 1/100th of that damage in gains.
At least we can rest assured of one thing: this trend WILL end. Through rational thinking? Through tears? Through violence? Through total catastrophe? That's the question. But end it will. Guaranteed.
I don't think anyone is accusing the Mozilla CEO of "stealing" the money.
The way to go at this without breaking incentives for people to start new businesses won't be easy and it won't be by way of redistribution like socialists (etc.) are so fond of. The best way is most likely to change societal norms so that it will no longer be seen as acceptable for a company to have a CEO (or CFO or COO or CxO) hauling in more than, say, 24 times the average pay in his or her company. That '24' number just fell out of my sleeve and probably needs some more thought but the gist is clear. In 2023 the average pay ratio for CEO to average was somewhere around 270 to 1 and that ratio has been going up for decades. By now you'd think that CEOs would have priced themselves out of the market but that does not happen. I suspect this has a lot to do with the makeup of the boards of directors which decide over CEO pay being manned by other (aspiring) CEOs who as a group have an interest in keeping up CxO pay.
Yes, this is a difficult problem to really solve but also yes, I think it is a problem and I think it is worth solving it.
I'm not sure I actually agree with this argument, to be clear. I don't even know that I think the CEO does all that much; Elon Musk is the CEO of like three or four companies while also leading a government agency, indicating to me that "CEO" is not a difficult job, so I don't know that we necessarily need "the best" CEO anyway.
Mozilla does not need to find future possibilities, it got its goals handed to it by Marc Andreessen via Netscape: create and maintain a browser. The task of a non-profit CEO is to make sure the company remains funded. This takes a different type of person, someone who has or manages to create contacts within places where money is to be found. The last series of Mozilla CEOs saw this differently, these women convinced themselves that they were there to 'change the world' by means of pushing ideologically loaded programs and propaganda onto it. They considered the true reason for being of their organisation - create and maintain a browser which competes against the duopoly by giving control back to the user - no more than a means to get the funding for their ideological crusade. They also increased their own piece of the pie markedly in the process in some strange realisation of Orwell's All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than the others quote.
You can criticize Mozilla's "women" for being political, but Elon Musk is the most politically active and powerful CEO in the world, possibly of all time.