You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

Study Busts Myth Corporations use to Justify Skyrocketing CEO Pay

Rebecca Leber
Think Progress / News Report
Published: Monday 24 September 2012
“It is increasingly apparent that the pay awarded to chief executives is becoming profoundly detached from not just the pay of the average worker, but also from the companies they run.”
Article image

CEO pay has increased 725 percent over three decades, while worker pay has essentially remained flat. A new study challenges a conventional practice corporations use to justify skyrocketing CEO pay, which is that without it, CEOs would leave for competitors. According to the study by the University of Delaware’s Charles M. Elson and Craig K. Ferrere:

It is increasingly apparent that the pay awarded to chief executives is becoming profoundly detached from not just the pay of the average worker, but also from the companies they run. Offsetting the external focus, which is so heavily relied upon today, with internal metrics and internal benchmarking may help to curb the persistent escalation. We hope that if directors are no longer constrained by notions of “competitive” pay, which are driven by the false belief that CEOs are interchangeable, they may have the space to rationalize the upward spiraling pay ratchet and deliver what is more shareholder acceptable compensation.

Company boards rely on a practice where they use loosely defined “peer groups” of supposedly similar companies to set the CEO’s compensation. In reality, few CEOs leave one company for another: Of 1,800 CEO successions between 1993-2005, less than 2 percent had held the position at a competing firm. Their skills, highly specific to the company, are not easily transferrable.

Another issue is the “peer groups” companies use is so loosely defined that it includes firms that are much larger or aren’t in the same industry, much less rivals. In other words, the CEO of IBM is unlikely to jump to AT&T, Ford or Pfizer, even though those companies’ CEOs are included in IBM’s peer group.

A recent example may include Best Buy, which offered its new CEO a three-year compensation package of $32 million, after laying off 2,400 employees this summer. A company spokes woman defended CEO Hubert Joly’s pay as “in-line with best practice for Fortune 50 companies,” and “is squarely in the mid-range for a CEO of a company the size of Best Buy.”

It’s a false paradox,,” study co-author Elson told the New York Times. “The peer group is based on the theory of transferability of talent. But we found that C.E.O. skills are very firm-specific. C.E.O.’s don’t move very often, but when they do, they’re flops.”

I don't have stock in Best

I don't have stock in Best Buy, but if I did I would sell now. Who is sitting on the Boards of these companies that approve these insane CEO salaries? Layoff 2,400 employees then hire a new CEO for $32 million? That is not only demoralizing to the people laid off, but to the employees remaining also. Extremely poor judgement by a once proud MN company.

Aren't these Fortune 500

Aren't these Fortune 500 boards and others also staffed by people who vote for your salary, and you inturn sit on their boards and vote for their salaries.

GREED - Which is exactly why

GREED - Which is exactly why corporations no longer give their employee's healthcare - - - that is of-course excluding the CEO's

The man has never lived who

The man has never lived who is worth $32 million anything. This is merely one over-inflated corporation trying to look more bloated than the next.
We've allowed sick jokes like this to rise out of a valueless society that has awarded us with today's congress and dysfunctional government. Perhaps we need to question the basic tenets of our nation's pledge.

CEO in the acronym for 'Do

CEO in the acronym for 'Do less but get paid more'. At $32 million a year best buy's Hubert Joly falls in the 'job creator?' class, which finally gives us a defined view of what being a "job creator?" actually means. "The more folks I fire makes my salary go higher!" "So then the more I make for me the less I should have to pay!". Hence Gee WHiz's tax cuts for the 'self-wealth creators'. So in the real world, the cancervatives argument is that tax cuts for the self-wealth creating job destroyers will help the economy by putting people back to work by laying them off. You don't need to be Spock to see the obvious there.

peer review is self feeding

peer review is self feeding tim raises joe salary so tim needs raise to stay in line

Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...