It has been argued by many individuals that companies should pay huge amounts of money to the head of department than other labourers. I strongly agree with the above reasoning, taking into account the successful outcome is highly relied on the manager’s responsibilities in front of beneficiers, despite having several disadvantageous effects in collective activities.
On the one hand, labour productivity can be deprived due to the significant between the salaries of senior and regular employees. From this point of view, the high wage disparity can create emotional obstacles for accessibility to various initiatives toward senior managers. Reason why, big salary can enhance a person’s charisma and leading to create a barrier independent exchanging among diverse positions of colleagues. As a result, mutually limited relations among employees are caused about decreasing in labour efficiency. In addition, high monthly salary in workplaces leads to discrimination among employees. Disparity in salary distribution creates resentment among employees, as a result of comparing working hours and responsibilities.
In the labour market, senior superintendents should be paid well considering their obligations and liderships. Firstly, superiors are accountable to envisioning the strategy of the company , , [Incorrectly used dash or quote characters; Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma.] planing projects and taking action to implement it. In this regard, heads of departments utilize the own existing knowledge and potential, because these effective efforts serve not only the benefits of the particular corporation but also the customers and other shareholders.
Secondly, achieving financial maturity can contribute strengthening to strengthening of senior managers’ self-confidence. Consequently, tenacious heads of departments strive to skillful manage own the own team. While ordinary workers envy their leaders and work tirelessly.
In conclusion, I would wholeheartedly support paying managers more, despite the fact that it is financially incompatible with the principles of social equatiy.