I've worked in a lot of large organisations

and poor performing CEOs have been sacked if they're not performing. Contingencies are built into budgets for just this reason. And yes it's a risk, but if multinational bluechips do it because long-term it safeguards their investments and their shareholders then I don't see why we don't. There's some simple maths to do as well - the cost of the 'risk' of change, versus the cost of the 'risk' of relegation.

Posted By: camcan, Dec 14, 10:09:18