With most company bosses expecting a full return to the office within three years, questions are being raised about the power they wield and the salaries they command
And soon enough shareholders and investors will be pondering whether the stratospheric salaries paid to CEOs are commensurate with the vaguely defined value they add to the enterprise. And also compare the modest salaries paid to CEOs in the EU with those of the so-called high-flyers elsewhere.
It’d result in no change, everyone at the top end is scratching each others backs.
Most annoying for me is the old argument that they need to compete internationally for CEOs etc. I can’t recall the last time an Australian CEO was head hunted to leave here.
QF is profitable because it has a stranglehold on the market; intrastate & interstate, not because of senior management.
Excellent post! The most frustrating story among all these return to office mandates is that of Starbucks CEO, Brian Niccol, who responded to the backlash that arose after his employees found out he was still working from home despite the return to office mandate by commuting from his home in Newport Beach, California to Seattle, Washington several times a week...by private jet....
As I see it, "superstar" CEOs like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are borderline sociopaths who exploit their workers mercilessly and take credit for things done by others. Not sure about Bezos, but Musk has also massively benefited from public funds. I'm sure I'd be richer than I am now if I treated other people as expendable pawns and got millions in government subsidies.
Perhaps a right to work from home (at least for large corporations) should be enshrined in the Fair Work Act, with the onus on the employer to present a business case for why it should be disallowed. The Fair Work Commission could then settle any disputes about the bona fides of the business case.
CEOs rely on acceptance of their power over staff. The sources of that power may be referral or even expert. This is where, over a long period of time, a CEO earns respect and wins acceptance. Many higher management structures, especially flattened ones, generate CEOs in this manner. This is especially true of elaborately transformed manufacturing firms, where some knowledge of the intricate production process is mandatory.
But there are other businesses where boards prefer a CEO whose power source comes only from them. This is especially true when downsizing of staff is occurring. I remember the “hatchet” CEOs of the 1990s who made their bonuses on the speed of their retrenchments.
The coercive power driven CEO has little or no regard for other employees. Even other higher management peers are seen, not as allies but, as threats. Staffing is then merely a reflection of the CEO’s ego and not the optimal level for maximum efficiency - an economics textbook ideal if there ever was one.
Coercive CEOs must have their staff under their thumb. That means they all must be in workplace locations they can manipulate. Little thought is given to the difficulties of peak hour traffic and/or the family commitments of their staff. This then affects the labour productivity at both a marginal and absolute level. Both tend to stagnate at best, but may also fall.
It could be said that the falling labour productivity, for the period from 1999 to 2019, may be partly explained by the insensitive employment practices mandated by many CEOs. It certainly is an observable trend that ever since CEOs began getting excessive performance bonuses, their concern for staff satisfaction may have diminished.
Return to work edicts are typical of the behaviour seen from coercive power based CEO. These will not improve labour productivity; and may even heighten the tendency of key staff to switch jobs on a regular basis.
Boards are liable for, but rarely active in controlling, the actions of their CEOs as long as profits continue to rise. Even if this rise is at the expense of staffing levels, boards continue to reward CEOs for doing their job in a forceful manner.
I agree with you on CEOs but I don't think politicians are overpaid. Also, if you don't pay them well, you just create a huge incentive for corruption.
Dell workers ignore return-to-office mandate https://www.thestreet.com/employment/dell-workers-make-risky-move-to-dodge-return-to-office-mandate
And soon enough shareholders and investors will be pondering whether the stratospheric salaries paid to CEOs are commensurate with the vaguely defined value they add to the enterprise. And also compare the modest salaries paid to CEOs in the EU with those of the so-called high-flyers elsewhere.
It’d result in no change, everyone at the top end is scratching each others backs.
Most annoying for me is the old argument that they need to compete internationally for CEOs etc. I can’t recall the last time an Australian CEO was head hunted to leave here.
QF is profitable because it has a stranglehold on the market; intrastate & interstate, not because of senior management.
We're hearing the same half-baked "get back to the office" calls here too:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/529256/the-week-in-politics-the-ups-and-downs-of-working-from-home
Excellent post! The most frustrating story among all these return to office mandates is that of Starbucks CEO, Brian Niccol, who responded to the backlash that arose after his employees found out he was still working from home despite the return to office mandate by commuting from his home in Newport Beach, California to Seattle, Washington several times a week...by private jet....
https://www.thestreet.com/employment/starbucks-ceo-employees-return-office
Do as I say ...
As I see it, "superstar" CEOs like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are borderline sociopaths who exploit their workers mercilessly and take credit for things done by others. Not sure about Bezos, but Musk has also massively benefited from public funds. I'm sure I'd be richer than I am now if I treated other people as expendable pawns and got millions in government subsidies.
Perhaps a right to work from home (at least for large corporations) should be enshrined in the Fair Work Act, with the onus on the employer to present a business case for why it should be disallowed. The Fair Work Commission could then settle any disputes about the bona fides of the business case.
CEOs rely on acceptance of their power over staff. The sources of that power may be referral or even expert. This is where, over a long period of time, a CEO earns respect and wins acceptance. Many higher management structures, especially flattened ones, generate CEOs in this manner. This is especially true of elaborately transformed manufacturing firms, where some knowledge of the intricate production process is mandatory.
But there are other businesses where boards prefer a CEO whose power source comes only from them. This is especially true when downsizing of staff is occurring. I remember the “hatchet” CEOs of the 1990s who made their bonuses on the speed of their retrenchments.
The coercive power driven CEO has little or no regard for other employees. Even other higher management peers are seen, not as allies but, as threats. Staffing is then merely a reflection of the CEO’s ego and not the optimal level for maximum efficiency - an economics textbook ideal if there ever was one.
Coercive CEOs must have their staff under their thumb. That means they all must be in workplace locations they can manipulate. Little thought is given to the difficulties of peak hour traffic and/or the family commitments of their staff. This then affects the labour productivity at both a marginal and absolute level. Both tend to stagnate at best, but may also fall.
It could be said that the falling labour productivity, for the period from 1999 to 2019, may be partly explained by the insensitive employment practices mandated by many CEOs. It certainly is an observable trend that ever since CEOs began getting excessive performance bonuses, their concern for staff satisfaction may have diminished.
Return to work edicts are typical of the behaviour seen from coercive power based CEO. These will not improve labour productivity; and may even heighten the tendency of key staff to switch jobs on a regular basis.
Boards are liable for, but rarely active in controlling, the actions of their CEOs as long as profits continue to rise. Even if this rise is at the expense of staffing levels, boards continue to reward CEOs for doing their job in a forceful manner.
Why wouldn't CEOs want workers who are happier and more productive through working from home?
Two questions: why do CEOs still receive bonuses when they stuff up?
: why are Australian PMs and parliamentarians paid more than those of other nation states?
I agree with you on CEOs but I don't think politicians are overpaid. Also, if you don't pay them well, you just create a huge incentive for corruption.
Because like a lot of the powerful in Australia they are very greedy.