Workers demotivated by executives' high pay

CLAPTON

evidence less nonsense

michaels

I care not what others are paid but do dislike those who think themselves better than there peers because they are paid more.

I come from a genraton where I was used to there not being spare 'disposable income' for fun things so have no sympathy for those who complain that you can't save for and buy a house and stil 'have a life'.

mwpt

mayonnaise wrote: »

Probably another sign of this culture of jealousy and envy, so pervasive in our society today?

My apologies if I've got this incorrect (relative newbie here). Aren't you the person that argues with Graham for being anti-boomer?

Human nature will not have changed in the slightest since 'your day'. So humans today are not different from humans in those days. If they act differently it is because the environment has changed. Could it be because income inequality is rising? Could it be because of inequality in assets is rising (house prices)?

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

My apologies if I've got this incorrect (relative newbie here). Aren't you the person that argues with Graham for being anti-boomer?

Human nature will not have changed in the slightest since 'your day'. So humans today are not different from humans in those days. If they act differently it is because the environment has changed. Could it be because income inequality is rising? Could it be because of inequality in assets is rising (house prices)?

of course it could be because we all all massively richer that previously and richer than most of the people of the world and we feel guilty.

still no actual evidence that large 'inequality' leads to people working less hard

mwpt

stator wrote: »

I think the reason for this statistic is that the top execs aren't seen to earn their pay. People get paid huge amounts of money, the company doesn't improve, maybe they lay off some people, the execs leave on the merry go round to another company where they are paid large amount of money. Some more execs come in and are paid large amounts of money and achieve nothing again.

At my previous company, I outlasted 5 CEOs. Each of those was rewarded very very handsomely. Each year we were all sat down for donut time. Donut time is when you get the speech "it's been a challenging year in this economic climate" and receive your bonus of the inside of a donut (ie. 0). Donut time didn't seem to apply to the execs running the show.

I still get paid very well relative to other industries, so I just get on with it. But I can say for certain that I watched as the environment in which I worked went from people working 12-14 hour days to doing standard 8 hours, the downward trend starting around 2008/09. In the last few years, I'd be alone in the large floor of the office anytime I was there after 8pm (I work best at night, so I'd still work late, often).

lisyloo

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I must admit that I wonder where anyone on low pay - say up to £20k (or even pretty standard type pay - say "£25k-£35k") is supposed to get any motivation from if they live in a part of the country where its a struggle to buy housing.

That would be the vast majority of the country then:(. £25k compared to, say, even starter houses coming in at not much under £200k = what's the point of trying basically? That being - because you can't even get something as basic as that starter house - unless you get a lot of parental help OR get married and you both plug away at saving literally every single penny possible for gawdknowshowlong in the hope you can "outrun" house prices.

There are acceptable starter flats in Derby for £65k.

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

evidence less nonsense

The OP has presented some evidence. I doubt very much that 6/10 (per the survey) are really discouraged by high levels of executive pay and the questions were phrased to give such an answer. I'd also assume that, as per most surveys, what people say is quite different to what they do.

However, this is the sort of evidence that drives politicians to do the things they do so dismissing it as pointless isn't an evidence based counter.

There's some evidence that happiness, above a certain pay level, isn't much enhanced by more pay and that happiness becomes relative rather than absolute. I think happiness is a reasonable proxy for motivation.

https://www.princeton.edu/~deaton/downloads/deaton_kahneman_high_income_improves_evaluation_August2010.pdf

BananaRepublic

Some years ago an unprofessional financial adviser met with each staff member, and left out on his desk a sheet giving all of our salaries. At least one person could read upside down. Others found out my salary, and I was bullied quite badly for months. That was envy, pure and simple.

I don't care what the top people get if I am treated okay. In one company the owners made a million or two, but I was well paid. I liked them a lot. In another company the owners made a million or two, but I was not well treated, so yes I resented these people. I also hated them as people. I can understand those on a low wage feeling resentment.

All I can say to those on low pay is go to night school, take some exams, qualify as something, get a better job, get more qualifications, move on and up. My father did just that despite no school qualifications. I know it's not so easy if you have a family though.

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

It's fairly well established that once a certain pay level has been achieved (which isn't high) further increases only increase happiness on a reduced scale. After that happiness becomes much more relative as we compare ourselves to, predominantly, our peers.

That's why I very much doubt the average, for example, BT worker knows or gives a flying fig about what the company executives earns. If they find out, however, someone doing the same job is earning £500 more their happiness and motivation will suffer out of all proportion to what can be insignificant sums of money.

It's human nature and envy is part of human nature.

Funny you should say that while working for BT I can remember when we were having difficulty negotiating a rise with industrial action, the CEO got a rise of not to far short of what I was earning. That didn't go down to well with me or any other employee.

kabayiri

I do think this is a bit of an empty story which happens to remind us that this organisation called the CIPD still exists.

Haven't the workers always considered the bosses to earn too much?

Having said that there are question marks over the way exec pay is set. Maybe too much has been made of this 'benchmarking' process? E.g, should some council chief execs earn more than the PM when increasingly more council jobs are outsourced nowadays? Don't they have less to manage?