The US Army in WWII is known for moving and reassigning top ranking generals - failure was more a case of "you failed at amphibious landings in Pacific but now go do Air cover in Europe."
But in general I feel if you want people to take risks for you, it's best that you pay them so much they stop having worries at home and just have worries at work. Executing people for failure looks like it gets results, but often it just gets results hidden
As opposed to execs getting rewarded no matter what so they can be open about their failures that they won’t resolve.
There is a point to not executing people for failures so that information isn’t hidden but when “not getting paid massive amounts of compensation” is equivalent to execution I think you’re going to have the same bad behaviors.
But in general I feel if you want people to take risks for you, it's best that you pay them so much they stop having worries at home and just have worries at work. Executing people for failure looks like it gets results, but often it just gets results hidden