I believe in the ‘free market’ and the incentive to compete, innovate, and offer excellent customer service.
In competitive markets, maybe with at least three significant businesses, my view is that bosses that succeed can reasonably be highly rewarded.
There is though in my mind a very strong contrast with less competitive markets. You can call these monopolies or quasi-monopolies.
The obvious example is the utility businesses. In effect no competition. There is no local competition, nor overseas competitors.
The government organisations are effectively in this same boat. This includes senior civil servants and goverment agencies. Likewise the NHS, and the BBC. Universities are another example.
None of these ‘Chief Eecutives’ face much if any competition.
However, in terms of pay, they try to argue about their ‘weighty responsibilities’ and how they need ‘special people’ in these roles.
It is however obscene to be paying some of these people in the order of half a million pounds per year, when really all they have to do is go through the motions. How often is it said that performance is not good enough and action taken?
Personally I would limit the pay in these roles to that of the Prime Minister. I feel confidant that should vacancies arise, you could find first rate candiates on this sort of pay.
Given that Finance Directors and H.R. Directors are often on 80% of Chief Executive pay, it would end the nonsnese of a BBC H.R, Director being paid three hundred thousand pounds a year…..
Leave a Reply