None of us are justifying his salary.  The point is, he was voted back in, at the salary and contract that he currently has. If when the contract was signed, they we're happy with him, and they thought the salary was justified, then that's the pill they need to swallow  if it turned  out bad.

Like a painting, anything is only worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it.

More than deserved salaries, considering their results they should get more.

Talented engineers and executives that create progress, richness and work are paid less than high finance crooks and bankers that stole from savers and investors and crippled the economy.

Or you can get off your high horse because your article does nothing to compare the actual JOBS of Stringer vs Iwata or any other CEO involved here.

Sony being a conglomerate requires Stringer analyze and deal with over a dozen markets vs Iwata's one.  By default Stringer has a higher comparative workload and should have a comparatively higher salary to boot.

Quite fair, though, so the biggest part of their earnings depends on their results.

Perhaps you should read your own article.  Or learn what a conglomerate is vs a multinational.  

The article only names Nissan and Panasonic, neither of which are conglomerates,  Panasonic compares to Sony better than Nintendo, but it's still far more narrow in scope than Sony.

"making him one of the highest paid executives at a Japanese company."  - There's nothing to compare the actual jobs or scope of the companies.

Somehow you missed the rest of it.

"making him one of the highest paid executives at a Japanese company."  - There's nothing to compare the actual jobs or scope of the companies.

I'll admit I made a writing mistake there as while Panasonic is a conglomerate, I meant that it still doesn't compare in sheer scope to Sony.   Panasonic almost entirely a electronics conglomerate; not dealing with Film or Computer Software etc.  

Again I would expect the executive that is required to deal with more market segments to be paid comparatively more.

i think we are basically saying if he can't bring them profit who gives  a shit how many branches he is in charge of.

he as CEO needs to do some cutting and figure out which branches are not worth it

I'll concede this if you can find something to show how he could be doing better.  I mean it's one thing if he's playing golf 300 days a year and the company drops, vs working 50hrs a week and still having the company drop due to whatever.  I honestly don't know where he falls within that kind of scale

what are you an art teacher in high school?  Does he get an A for effort.

So you're saying Stringer should be paid the same whether he's playing golf or actually working?  Cause your logic works both ways buddy.