Runs the risk that the led does not want to risk

In the controversy aroused by the stock options and free shares that the boards of Directors decide to allocate to leaders, everyone (or nearly) will be its honey of the introduction and the conclusion of an article of Jean Jaurès in the "dispatch of Toulouse" of May 28, 1890. "There is that courageous ruling class." At any time, the ruling classes are formed by conscious acceptance of the risk. Runs the risk that the led does not want to risk. (...) Not, in truth, employers so that the company currently, is not an enviable condition. And it is not with feelings of anger and greed that men should look each other, but with a kind of reciprocal pity may be the prelude to justice.

Yes, the Business Executive is a business seeking true ambition to achieve, but also great courage for it. It is a risky job whose status was not always enviable.

Yes, it involves a lot of talent to perform this function. In a market of goods and capital have become globalized, the market leaders is also global. It attracts not flies with vinegar, but with such financial incentives. Otherwise our top leaders will be run by other companies than French.

Yes, need financial incentives to reward talent, risk and performance. These incentives are variable remuneration granted stock options and free shares amounts have increased over time, perhaps too, no doubt because a marginally higher jurisdiction can have a value important in view of the size of the stakes.

Yes, it is necessary that incentives reward indeed than the actual performance. This is the meaning of the Afep/Medef recommendations that bind the obtaining of these incentive compensation to performance conditions. As the Americans say, avoid the "paid for luck and not for skill. These performance conditions may be minimum internal ratios to achieve profitability or references, such as the creation of shareholder value, or be the result of the gap with the performance of comparable companies.

Yes, it must be that these wages are indisputable and attributed in transparency, so that stock options be set out in conditions of retroactivity for the benefit of the leaders, which never happened in France the fact of the obligation of immediate declaration of stock options plans; and to avoid that they not be assigned in particularly favourable market situations, i.e. the effects of boon (although investors appear not very eager to take advantage of the low level of current). Also the choice of an annual allowance on fixed date of incentive compensation plans is a good practice.

Yes, options and shares free pay and are a burden for the company. They must be recorded as such, which is partly the case. In doing so, "remuneration packages" should be valued at fair value when they are assigned (ex ante) and not to the point where leaders, to the extent and because they met the conditions of performance gain (ex post). Indeed, the cost to the business of a melding, is its value to the shareholder at the time where it is granted, and not when it is exercised later.

"For the men to watch not with feelings of anger and greed", must still be that incentive pay benefit to a set of employees beyond the first circle of leaders, which would be in the interest of all stakeholders, to the extent it has been widely documented, especially by academic researchthat strong employee ownership companies create more value that, notwithstanding those who want to kill the calf but after him have loved, and put in the pillory the criterion of shareholder value, which has certainly never been an objective in itself (in the same way that you fall) not in love of a growth rate but that is not less a fair standard.