Let's see if I can get this straight....

Affairs aren't good things, I know.  But let's do some calculus:

CIA Director has affair, has to resign.  I get that, although I'm saddened by that, because I had a great deal of respect for him.

Incoming Lockheed CEO has affair, gets fired--and gets $3.5MM in severance pay.  Huh?

It's the incentives.

In today's special Dealbook section on BigLaw, there's a great article about the culture of firms like Cravath (here).  What I found especially interesting was the notion that taking out the eat-what-you-kill types of incentives, as well as the "if we don't pay them a lot of money, they'll leave" instincts, leads to a firm where people aren't necessarily cutthroat and still get to do very interesting work.

Not a big surprise.  After all, people work to fulfill the incentives given to them.  The people who focus on salary (see "anchoring effect"), at least after they reach the "comfortable living" threshold, seem to me to be among the most unhappy people.  I've had colleagues at every place I work whose mission in life seems to be to ferret out everyone else's salary and then sulk if they're not at the tippy-top of the list.  (They also tend to taunt the higher-paid among their colleagues.)

So when folks are paid in lockstep, they have to find their self-worth in other areas, such as the quality of the work they're getting, or the opportunities to do new and interesting work. 

Folks who head up organizations should take note.  It cannot be true that people need to be at the top of the pay scale to be happy.  And, because we don't live in Lake Wobegone, not everyone can be at the top of the pay scale.  Giving people opportunities and--when the money is there--raises is important.  Placing people into ordinal rank by salaries alone isn't.

A very smart op-ed about executive pay.

By Gretchen Morgenson, whose columns I always like.  Here.

A great idea: tying risk to responsibility.

See Joe Nocera's New York Times column today (here).

Best quote in an op-ed referencing Nozick.

John Kay's piece in the Financial Times (here) includes this wonderful paragraph, which applies to corporate pay and the pay of estate professionals in bankruptcy cases:

And again, problems arise when people voluntarily hand over money that is not their own. John Kenneth Galbraith once described executive pay as a warm personal gesture by the beneficiary to himself. In today’s world of remuneration committees, it is more often a warm personal gesture by friends to each other. 

Perfect.

Not just one but two great op-eds.

The first, from Nassim Taleb, in today's New York Times, points out that bonuses are not the best idea when it comes to bankers taking on too much risk (here); the second, from Joe Nocera, showed up in today's Las Vegas Sun but isn't on the Sun's web page.  It is on the New York Times's webpage (here).

Both op-eds remind us that it's important to pay attention to the facts:  study the behavior of people whose compensation isn't linked to the prudence of their decisions (Enron, anyone?) to see if bonuses make sense; pay attention to the the factors pushing people toward strategic defaults on their mortgages and try to think of sensible solutions (reductions of principal) as a way out of the mess.

What doesn't work?  Ignoring the facts.  For example, check out Andrew Ross Sorkin's column today on the continuing saga that is the H-P board (here).

Boards that don't pay attention to actual performance before awarding incentives?  Check.  Bonuses not linked to actual performance?  Check.  Reasons why underperforming boards need to consider different ways of finding good new board members?  Oh, about a few trillion.

That "boom" you hear? It's MF Global Holdings going down, thanks in part to bad decisions concerning compensation.

See Joe Nocera's column describing Corzine's compensation here.

The rest of us are obviously in the wrong business.

The business of getting fired may, occasionally, be more lucrative than I had thought.  See here and here.

Update:  AND here.