Corporate Accountability: When CEOs Actually Take Responsibility
The news about ANZ’s CEO Shayne Elliott voluntarily forfeiting his $3 million bonus has sparked quite a discussion in business circles. It’s refreshing to see a top executive actually taking responsibility for their company’s performance, even if some skeptics suggest there might be more to the story.
Let’s be real here - when was the last time we saw an Australian corporate leader genuinely own up to their mistakes? Looking at you, Qantas and Telstra. The standard playbook usually involves blaming external factors, market conditions, or some other convenient scapegoat while pocketing massive bonuses regardless of performance.
The concept of performance-based bonuses has become a bit of a joke in corporate Australia. These “variable” payments have somehow transformed into guaranteed components of executive compensation packages. It’s particularly galling when you think about the average worker who actually faces real consequences for poor performance.
Working in tech, I’ve seen both sides of the bonus culture. In smaller companies and startups, bonuses are genuinely tied to performance and company success. Miss your targets? No bonus. Simple as that. But somehow, this basic principle seems to evaporate once you reach the upper echelons of corporate leadership.
The banking sector, in particular, has a long history of disconnect between performance and executive compensation. While frontend staff face intense pressure to meet targets and risk their jobs if they don’t perform, the same standards rarely apply to those at the top. The fact that Elliott’s decision is making headlines speaks volumes about how unusual it is.
Looking at international examples, like Nintendo’s leadership taking pay cuts to prevent layoffs, shows there’s a different way to approach corporate responsibility. It’s worth noting that this kind of leadership tends to be more common in Japanese corporate culture, where the concept of collective responsibility is more deeply ingrained.
The cynical view is that Elliott’s decision might be influenced by the impending first strike on ANZ’s remuneration report. Yet, even if that’s true, it’s still a step in the right direction. We need more corporate leaders willing to acknowledge when things aren’t going well and accept the financial consequences.
Perhaps it’s time for a systemic change in how executive compensation is structured. Instead of leaving these decisions to the discretion of individuals or boards, we need clearer, more automatic mechanisms that truly link performance to pay at all levels of an organisation.
The next time you’re in your performance review, fighting for that modest bonus you’ve genuinely earned, remember this moment. If more executives followed Elliott’s example, we might start seeing a corporate culture that actually practices what it preaches about accountability and performance-based rewards.
The banking sector might not be perfect, but at least this time, someone at the top is showing a glimpse of what responsible leadership could look like. Maybe, just maybe, it’s the start of a trend rather than an anomaly.