It is widely advocated that large companies should allocate higher remuneration to their CEOs and executives in comparison to other employees. From my perspective, I both agree and disagree with this tendency.
On the one hand, providing higher compensation to CEOs and executives presents several advantages. Firstly, it is justifiable for their dedication. Before assuming the role of a chief executive, individuals typically toil day and night, striving for professional advancement. They have spent more time improving their knowlege and skills than others; thus, they deserve to get a better salary. Furthermore, individuals in high-ranking positions shoulder greater responsibilities than their subordinates, and they must promptly address any mistakes or issues that arise within the company. They are under more pressure to handle all tasks. That’s why , they need to get what they paid for.
On the other hand, paying higher salaries to CO and executives compared to other workers may cause certain drawbacks. Primarily, it may instill a sense of inequity among other employees who perceive themselves as equally industrious and deserving of better compensation. Secondly, the knowledge of a substantial salary gap between the boss and their subordinates could dampen the motivation of dedicated employees. For instance, an exemplary staff member who diligently shoulders challenging tasks despite remuneration disparity may grow disheartened and lose enthusiasm for their duties.
In conclusion, while it is supposed that large corporations should prioritize higher salaries for CEOs and executives compared to other employees, I find myself in partial agreement and disagreement with this proposition.