Prompt: "Some have argued that the salaries of corporate executives should be linked to those of their lowest-paid employees. This, they argue, will improve relations between management and workers, reducing costly labor disputes and increasing worker productivity. What these people overlook, however, is that these high salaries are necessary to attract the best managers, the individuals whose decisions have the greatest impact on the overall well-being of the company."
Assignment: Which do you find more compelling, the contention that worker and executive salaries should be linked, or the response to it? Support your position with reasons and examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
BEGIN ESSAY
The author examines a stance that salaries of corporate executives should be linked to those of their lowest-paid employees. The author then states his or her opinion that high salaries are necessary in order to attract the best managers, and that these managers have the greatest impact on the well-being of the company. The author's stance holds merit, but his or her statements regarding the recruitment of talent and maintenance of company well-being simply need work.
First, to refute the idea that linking executives' salaries to their lowest-paid employees will improve relations, one must examine their own positive working relationships. Most workers would agree that they have positive relationships with coworkers with whom they identify in a personal way. In fact, since most coworkers keep their salaries private (as this discussion is commonly seen as "taboo") most would find it difficult to determine which of their coworkers has similar pay. It is also stated that labor dispute costs could be reduced by evening executive and worker pay. This implies that all labor disputes are the result of the distribution of pay. This is obviously false. The Occupational Safety and Health Act, likely the most prominent action in favor of workers' rights, was spawned as a result of working conditions, labor hours, and safety. In considering these facts, it is apparent that evening executive and lowest-paid worker pay will not have the stated effects.
As stated, the author's stance regarding corporate talent recruitement is flawed. As discussed in the book "Build to Last", the most effective executives are the result of "home-grown management". It is necessary to encourage internal leadership development. A particularly effective motivator to a budding leader is the prospect of increased salary.
Further, the author claims that executives' decisions have the greatest impact on the overall well-being of a the company. The overall well-being of a company can be measured by employee morale. Do these employees enjoy coming to work, do they see opportunity for advancement, are they motivated to exceed what is expected of them in order to stand out? Keep the proverbial carrot in front of the rabbit, or the potential for increased salary in front of the employee, and the answer to these questions is an emphatic "yes".
Assignment: Which do you find more compelling, the contention that worker and executive salaries should be linked, or the response to it? Support your position with reasons and examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
BEGIN ESSAY
The author examines a stance that salaries of corporate executives should be linked to those of their lowest-paid employees. The author then states his or her opinion that high salaries are necessary in order to attract the best managers, and that these managers have the greatest impact on the well-being of the company. The author's stance holds merit, but his or her statements regarding the recruitment of talent and maintenance of company well-being simply need work.
First, to refute the idea that linking executives' salaries to their lowest-paid employees will improve relations, one must examine their own positive working relationships. Most workers would agree that they have positive relationships with coworkers with whom they identify in a personal way. In fact, since most coworkers keep their salaries private (as this discussion is commonly seen as "taboo") most would find it difficult to determine which of their coworkers has similar pay. It is also stated that labor dispute costs could be reduced by evening executive and worker pay. This implies that all labor disputes are the result of the distribution of pay. This is obviously false. The Occupational Safety and Health Act, likely the most prominent action in favor of workers' rights, was spawned as a result of working conditions, labor hours, and safety. In considering these facts, it is apparent that evening executive and lowest-paid worker pay will not have the stated effects.
As stated, the author's stance regarding corporate talent recruitement is flawed. As discussed in the book "Build to Last", the most effective executives are the result of "home-grown management". It is necessary to encourage internal leadership development. A particularly effective motivator to a budding leader is the prospect of increased salary.
Further, the author claims that executives' decisions have the greatest impact on the overall well-being of a the company. The overall well-being of a company can be measured by employee morale. Do these employees enjoy coming to work, do they see opportunity for advancement, are they motivated to exceed what is expected of them in order to stand out? Keep the proverbial carrot in front of the rabbit, or the potential for increased salary in front of the employee, and the answer to these questions is an emphatic "yes".
