It is cited by some that CEOs get paid with higher welfares from organizations, conversely, typical personals earn less. I partially agree with the viewpoint since CEOs are assessed by their performances and the benefit they bring to the company, while the former are also accountable for supervising employees’ work.
Generally, the demand to have young leaders to control the whole society cannot disappear as long as they make organizations become widespread around the place, as a result it benefits the stakeholders to get more revenue from them. Firstly, managers are selected based on their long-term vision, experience and lastly their socio-economy, signifying how well they can handle the social and economic habits of people. It is also crucial to mention that companies do not give the income to them unintentionally, which means initially, shareholders test chief executive officers’ capabilities by some trials, examining their tolerance in such challenging scenarios, once they pass all the trials, they will have a highly possibility to be promoted as a CEO.
To be specific, managers are regarded as motivators to encourage staff to make effort to be in their place. Additionally, office managers have to be paid depending on how many financial advantages they carry with them as long as ordinary personals are also being paid with the same technique. For instance, stockholders, they are the ones who will check CEOs’ performances and how well they control the whole category of workers, ultimately, summarizing whether that person fits the company or should be hired from the job.
In summary, CEOs are not those who bring only good income, they are the ones who are capable of making every staff collaborate and to work together with exchanging concepts between each other.