It is believed that huge organizations should pay more to their executives in comparison to other employees. I partly agree with this statement because such practice consists of both merits and demerits. The following paragraphs provide relevant examples and reasoning to support my stance.
First and foremost, I believe CEOs should have higher incomes as they have more responsibilities. Generally, people at higher positions in their company are held accountable for the incompetence of their subordinates because their job role entails accountability as well. Hence they should be reimbursed accordingly. For example, an individual working in a clerical job has a simple objective while CEOs are responsible for the smooth operation of multiple departments such as marketing, research, manufacturing, and many more. Furthermore, one has to be adept in various fields in order to earn the title of CEO. Hence, it is only justified that executives are compensated for their time, efforts, skillset, and dedication to the company.
Nevertheless, paying certain individuals more can also have its downsides. One such disadvantage is that it can demotivate other employees. This is proven by the fact that if executives are paid more for their contribution towards the organizational goals, other people could feel that their work is undervalued in comparison. While this might not seem like a huge issue at first, it can definitely cause problems between workers. This situation can lead to conflicts between people who are paid more and people who feel underappreciated. Thus, disparity between incomes can create a hostile workplace environment that can impede the progress of a company.
In conclusion, I believe that paying executives of large companies more money than their colleagues is fair to individuals who have worked hard for the company to achieve a higher status but it can also have adverse effects on the relations between employees and on the organization as a whole.