We as a society have to ask the question, "How much is enough"? Organizations are organized and ran by societal constructs. Individuals come into organizations with their unique views and beliefs and sometimes those unique beliefs and values transcend into their work ethic or management style. Unfortunately, individual constructs are usually not aligned with organizations vision and this is how conflict and disassociations are triggered creating a atmosphere of individualism. Organizations all have visions and leadership is organized based on the perception of flow down and commitment. Consequently leadership is responsible for organizational culture and attitude.
In my observation, the lower the leadership level the more disconnected they tend to be from organizational constructs and vision. It is very difficult for organizations to manage and supervise from the top and is why managers are hired at lower levels. The concept is to hire an individual to directly and intimately manage a group while carrying out organizations vision. The problem that I have observed over the years is that not all leaders/managers buy into the organizations vision and are self serving. Why is this? Is it that they feel slighted by the organizations and that they feel they deserve more or is it that they are trying to obtain what they perceive as wealth and prestige based on society's standards? Society if flooded via media and other social forums what is considered to be wealthy is the US and what is perceived to be successful. Therefore, individuals join organizations with the their vision as to how to obtain that perceived status. Which I feel is creating individuals that are not committed to organizations goals but to their personal agenda.
The other side of leadership is the fact that organizations appear to be solely about making profit for their shareholders and the mere perception of this has created an environment of disconnect between individual workers and the organizations. Individuals are not committed to the organizations and the organizations are not committed to their individual employees. I get the whole idea of investors wanting to make money and increase their investment; however, it cannot be the sole driving force behind major decisions in organizations. I am living in a time where companies are so competitive in regards to retaining and obtaining business that they sacrifice their long time employees for the sake of increasing the bottom line. I am talking about billion dollars companies laying off employees that make a meager $50K a year but still find it necessary to reward executives million of dollars. Somehow that does not seem logical nor does it seem realistic. Terminating 100 employees that salaries range between $50K - $150K but continue to pay executives millions plus millions in bonus. That math and logic just doesn't seem to add up. So I ask again, how much money is enough to live a comfortable and sustainable lifestyle in the US?© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com March 5, 2021, 1:44 am ad1c9bdddf
Thanks for requesting me. Please let me know if you have any questions.
This is an interesting post. I understand your frustration: the average CEO of a large public company earns more than ten times what they did 30 years ago, "far outstepping the pay rise of even highly skilled workers during the period" (Starkman & Masunaga, 2015). The average worker's compensation has grown 10.9% since 1978, compared to the average CEO's compensation, which has increased 997% since 1978 (Starkman & Masunaga, 2015). At a glance, this seems unfair. However, I must disagree that somehow the market could bear to afford greater pay for most workers or even eliminate cost-cutting terminations. This represents socialism more than capitalism.
Compensation is generally determined based on the market standards. CEO pay is determined by industry ...
This detailed solution addresses the pay gap between CEO's and the average employee and suggests several ways to address it. Includes APA formatted references.