A sudden thought hit me while I was watching the inauguration yesterday: How come so many CEOs get paid more than the President of the United States?
Here’s why. The Presidential salary is set by regulatory law. CEO pay is set by asking CEOs how much they should be paid.
So I’m thinking that, since CEOs are now asking for government handouts, maybe it’s time to put regulatory sanity into CEO pay…
And I think I have a good metric to use, at least in B2B companies: pay the CEO the same money as the top sales reps.
A recent editorial in the New York Times on this issue (”Should Congress Limit Executive Pay?“) concluded that “the market-determined salary of a job generally offers the best — if imperfect — measure of its importance.”
Bull puckey.
Justifying ridiculously high CEO pay on the grounds that it’s what CEOs currently get paid is just circular logic. And in any case CEO pay not a free market. CEO pay is set by directors, most of whom are CEOs or want to be. That’s like asking a bunch of toddlers how much candy to hand out at a birthday party.
The editorial cited IBM’s Gerstner (originally from Nabisco) as an example of why an experienced (i.e. high priced) CEO is a good bet. However, for every Gerstner there are a dozen Nardellis who, after screwing up one company then proceed to screw up another.
The truth is that every large company has 20 or 30 VPs and SVPs who are perfectly capable of being CEO, and would be willing to do the job for less money than some ersatz superstar recruited from another firm.
Fifty years ago, CEOs typically made around 20 times the pay of the average worker, because they were understood to be nothing more than a manager of managers. And most companies recruited their CEO from within the ranks.
So let’s get real here. Despite all the lionization in the mainstream press, CEOs just aren’t all that important. Not really.
Here’s a perfect example. Last week, Steve Jobs announced a leave of absence due to health problems. Apple stock dropped 4 points — about a 5 percent decline in value.
Now, Steve Jobs is pretty much the epitome of the “CEO as demi-god” way of thinking. If any CEO would be important to the future of a company, it would have to be Jobs.
If so, why only a 5 percent drop? If CEOs are so freakin’ important that they deserve to be paid hundreds of times more than their average worker — shouldn’t Apple’s stock have tanked?
But it didn’t.
So I have a modest proposal. How about we make it that a CEO is always paid less than whatever the top 20 percent of sales team makes?
After all, it’s the sales team that’s generating the revenue and that top 20 percent (most of the time) are generating 80 percent of the income. So if they all quit, revenue would drop to next to zero, and the stock WOULD tank.
So who’s more important? The CEO… or the sales team? The sales team, obviously. So they should be paid more. Right?
READERS: Am I way out in left field here? Or can you see the logic of this as clearly as I do?







