In 2002, Ford made public some of the details related to the firing of the former CEO Jacques A. Nasser, which followed a $5.4 billion loss during his last year in the job (Mullaney & Darnell, 2002). In addition to an annual pension for life of nearly $1 million, the 53-year old ex-CEO received performance bonuses through 2003. He also received full payment on stock granted to him in 2001. It isn't known how many shares he received, but his 2000 award was worth $5.8 million in January 2002 (Business Week, January 14, 2002). This type of "sweet severance" package is not unusual when a corporation terminates a CEO for lackluster performance.

CEO was excused from the organization after his such a disillusioning exhibition of him (for example a $5.4 billion misfortune)  

Considerably after such a baffling exhibition and making such an enormous misfortune to the organization he is paid a yearly annuity for life of almost $1 million, gets execution rewards through 2003, and gets full installment on stock conceded to him in 2001 and his 2000 honor was worth $5.8 million.  

I think the main motivation behind why loads up of executives endorsed of such arrangements for disrespected CEOs on out, when most workers who are laid off get at the most half a month's severance pay is that there must had been a statement in the understanding between the organization and the CEO at the hour of arrangement of the CEO that if the CEO is ended from the activity he would be paid such kind of "sweet severance bundle whatever may be the circumstance. For example regardless of whether he makes such a dreary presentation.  

Such approach embraced by the organization is totally against the organization's advantage particularly against the enthusiasm of the considerable number of partners of the organization. The organization ought to embrace exacting guidelines against such kind of chiefs. They should fuse exacting statements in their understanding while at the same time designating such higher positioning posts as CEOs.