Barrier:
Exorbitant Executive Salaries = Resources Wasted On Those Who Don't Need Them
Here's the question. Should you lock up that much money in feeding the salaries of so few people, or might you be better off with a Jobs like situation - where you set the base salaries, nominal bonuses, and set most of the remuneration based on shares distributed in option plans, which are heavily dependent upon the fluctuations on on the open market? If you opt for this move, this should free up resources which would otherwise be spent on executive compensation, and allow it to be used as resources to feed innovation at the spaces in the company where creativity and invention will have a higher ROI. In other words, freeing up capital not used for executive salaries can be alternatively used as slack resources to generate room for big changes both organizationally and product-wise within the corporation.
This is a classic resource dependency problem outlined by Pfeffer and Salancik. If you would like to drive change throughout an operation, one has to create slack resources that allow a shift from the old ways of doing by creating resource reservoirs that can be directed toward encouraging new ways of behaving and operating. Easy to articulate on a web location. Harder to make happen in the real world.
In looking around my own industry, a good example here is salaries at the University Presidential level. Often, Presidents of such universities are remunerated with much more than a regularly large paycheck. They get an on campus and off campus home. They have chefs, personal assistants, chauffeurs or university cars, police protection, luxury box seats at the stadium, etc... After, say, about 100 to 250K, what does the salary get you in terms of performance at the presidential level (and I know I'm leaving out the presidents executive level cabinet - which would be a fun fiscal case to examine at some point)? The argument from the board may be, well, we get top drawer leadership and this person brings in multimillion dollars in funding for the school, which more than covers the costs of those perks.
The question I raise here is as to if the monies beyond a certain level of salary might not be better spent on developing a pool of resources that can be utilized to generate organizational slack that can invigorate invention, creativity, and lead to new ways of doing in an ongoing way that allows people to break free of the shackles of the long standing tradition or status quo.
Executives are the backbone of the organization and therefore we should be more aware of the different organization and it is more important that we should focus on our career. There are more exorbitant executive salaries which will be only available to the person those who are working for the organizations. We should generally focus on the management work on higher work, the reinvent the worker of the organization.
- Log in to post comments
IM not sure they dont need the remuneration, lets face it in a world of unlimited wants there is always a need.
I think the better question should encompass a 'should' perspective. Should the executives who may have risen to their positions of power and fortune by unsustainable means be rewarded on ethical grounds in the way that they are?
This is central as we slowly negotiate the corner of sustainability on this one lonely planet. Change needs to be 'area agnostic' especially when dealing with sustainability issues. The holy cows of unfettered profit maximisation need to be put out to pasture and society needs to start asking the tough questions in my opinion.
- Log in to post comments
Hi --- the problem with executive pay does include salary ---- but it also includes stock. The stock awards are extremely difficult to understand, rely on calculations that are at best "assumptions" and not really tied to performance. Some of the best minds in executive compensation today (and I don't mean the typical "big box" firms are struggling with this. CEO's have less control over the market price of company stock now with increased globalilzation as well as the fact that there are fewer investors in the U,S. market. More large investors and frankly more "hanky panky" in terms of hedge fund/deriative involvement and funds that bet both ways on company stock ---- both rise and fall.
So stock plans and how to incorporate them in executive compensation is the real question. Maybe we are ready for a totally new way to reward execs.
- Log in to post comments
You need to register in order to submit a comment.