A building society signs up an ambitious manager to be their CEO. Asset value is $200 million. Over the next 18 months the Building Society has a share offer, and merges with another building society to become a bank. Asset value increases to $800million and the decision is made to go global. With new operating imperitives it is decided to advertise for a CEO with the appropriate expertise to fill the position for a globalised bank. The current CEO demands to know why the position is not automatically is. Because he has done a good job of the small entity, he is offered some time to show that he can run a global bank, though the Board have severe concerns about his ability to handle it. During his probationary period he does a reasonable job but makes some severe errors of judgement which could have cost the bank millions had the board not intervened to minimise the damage. It was decided that the existing CEO was not up to the task of CEO of Global operations but that he would be a good 2IC to the incoming manager. This job is offered to him. The CEO spits the dummy, goes out to the media and speaks of the disloyalty of the organisation, and demands that he be paid as much as the incoming Global CEO if the bank is to show its loyalty. The money men do the maths and realise it has to be one or the other - employ the current CEO as Global CEO, or let him go and find a suitable applicant for Global CEO. Given that the current CEO has shown that he is incapable of immediately taking the entity to the next level, and given the risk of a significant loss of shareholder confidence if he is retained, the bank reluctantly agrees that they cannot offer the money being asked of the current CEO. Have they made the right choice?