Executive Compensation

Prompted by a piece in the New York Times reporting that Ivan Seidenberg, CEO of Verizon, collected $19.6 million in compensation last year, Tom Peters commented on executive compensation. Here’s an excerpt:

In general, there's been a firestorm surrounding executive pay this year. I've generally avoided the topic. I believe in markets—including markets for exec pay. On the other hand, when something looks downright silly ... it may well be downright silly. Seidenberg is but one of many examples of this magnitude of apparent disjunction between pay and performance.

Frankly, I think the impact of mega-corp CEOs on performance is wildly overrated. Looking at the pay scales you'd think the CEO had done all the work of the company single-handedly. I acknowledge that there are probably a handful of CEOs who have indeed moved mountains—Gerstner at IBM in the 90s, Nardelli at Home Depot today. But by and large, the boss's impact, while important, is hardly as important as the pay disparity between him and his top lieutenants, let alone the rank and file.

So, I give up. I hereby join the parade of those who say, "Enough."

Tom is right on. In general, we give CEO’s too much credit for successes and too much blame for failures. This impairs the performance of both the top management team and the organization as a whole. Robert Sutton, professor of management at Stanford, recently said in an interview that new research is coming out that suggests that the bigger the difference in pay between the CEO and next top three people of that management team, the worse that firm performs. The problem isn’t that they get more. They should. The problem is that is disproportionately more. But, how should that compensation be determined? Perhaps compensation should be linked to defined earnings performance goals? Should a highly qualified CEO get what the market is willing to pay? Should a wise CEO place a self-imposed cap on their compensation for the good of the organization and the market in general?