I had written (here: http://kaleemaziz.com/v-web/b2/index.php?p=545) about VPs and their extra expected dedication/commitment to their company/role/job. The job in itself does not start and end with their authorities and pay, but in terms of "earning" that decisively (i.e., in ways other can see) make the company succeed.

For some VPs, the role starts with "I" rather than "earn it" (through proving to others, and gaining their respect/followership) - talk about babysit baby with ego, or immature morons. (If you come to Silicon Valley and flash your MIT/hardwork, little will happen till you show you made your company succeed. Of course, unless you cheat yourself into the job - which AIG must've given its executives some valuable skills at!)

So goes the story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?em=&pagewanted=all

"I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money."

You sound like there was good money and bad money at AIG, and bad money never touched you. Somehow you've figured out a way to separate milk and water.

"I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds."

Excuse me, "political winds"?! You are an EVP, you want someone to breakdown "political winds" for you to the level of "pissed off public"?! As an EVP take ownership that agreeing to $1 salary and all bonus was your (only yours) strategic mistake. Blaming Liddy, your education, your parents, the politicians, the public, etc., isn't the issue. As an EVP, you should've been able to pinpoint the reason for your problem within a fraction of a second. That's what you are being paid for as an EVP - i.e., making decisive and as-close-to-correct-as-possible decisions (even when supplied with insufficient or misleading information) with speed and creating a following/alignment to its resolution in such a way that multiple problems are solved by your one move.

"We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house."

Huh - I want to be your plumber who promises fixing your pipes, works for 12 hours a day for a month, and ends up stopping any water in any faucet in your house. Per your logic, you'll still pay my company because I did some work. Results are the yardstick, mister. In your case, end-to-end results - you did your part of the job (of selling the units) - but the final race hasn't been run, the results are not out that all damage is undone, and/or the product is not complete for use by the consumer. What you are calling "results" or "profits" or "right to pay" is only a portion of the task - yet the task itself is not complete.

"Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you."

This situation you are in has a bigger picture. It is far more than between you and Liddy - this is round two between AIG and the public. After what your company has done to the public, should public feel honored to pay your contract through our funds?!
o Round #1 your company cheated us and didn't care where we ended up laying,
o and then you got dumped by your own team mates,
o and then you tried to jump ship but changed your mind and didn't,
o and in round #2 public screwed your company with you and Liddy in it - gave your company money to spend, but denied you the right to fill your pockets.
In all, for someone from MIT, what went around came around - however, your story's starting point is starting where your pain started. I would want to see how well you did at MIT and what the jack you did making responsible decisions at AIG. If I didn't read that right, you were an EVP, right?!

"So what am I to do? There’s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn’t disagree."

There you've answered it! World is fine and dandy as long as you've made money through the company and saved up - giving you the luxury to be a snob while and after the job. "Profit sharing" for you must be full of profits, and when it comes to "loss sharing" you should have the luxurious opportunity to jump ship. That's what you call fair. Now, again, you are responsible for making decisions for people around you - and for customers?! With this maturity, how again did you say you got this job?! Makes me wonder if there are more of your kind in AIG - in which case the bail out was a bigger mistake than having trusted you enough to let your company bankrupt so many of the public/corporations.

"On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients."

Did you think - or have you been in the practice of "thinking" practically/analytically - before you went public with your letter? Here's a befitting response for you:

"As soon as I finish paying the post-medical insurance but nonetheless significant medical bills for my husband's recent surgery, and recalculate our budget, factoring in the 10% involuntary pay cut together with increased state income taxes, I will turn my attention to an extravagant display of empathy for Mr. De Santis' post-tax $742,000 plight. Woe is he. — deranieri, San Diego"

You might say hardships are not a measure of business value as a response to "deranieri" above. I'll tell you, that's exactly my point to you.

If you are not a written-word person, but a picture person, hope you'll take the hint:


- Kaleem Aziz.