Lump CEOs, entertainers and professional athletes together into a category of "people who get paid more than seems rationale."

In these cases, the compensation is based on market forces that transcend actual performance. It takes into account their ability to generate profit and attention.

So, let's use market forces to turn this around. We need a "Priceline.com" for CEOs and other executives. With an advertising message like, "Same slick ideas and vision--for less!" we could appeal to the value-seeking board looking to replace a high-priced CEO.

I see William Shatner beating a CEO about the head, until he runs out of the company in tears. Then Shatner walks in the new CEO--at 1/10th the price.

This will be big!

Okay, for those of you who actually read this comment all the way to here, I want to point you to an unrelated, and actually useful, piece of information.

On Melcrum's The Communicators' Network, (registration required at http://communicatorsnetwork.smallworldlabs.com)Monika Stafford has posted some insights regarding CEO requirements for internal communications. Two tidbits:

- CEOs feel internal communicators are not doing enough to communicate strategy and vision.
-They view IC as part of their Executive Team, having the same influence as members of their closest senior team.
-CEOs "are not bothered one bit about social media."

According to Monika, the "overridding message was clear - as internal communicators we need to get up close and personal to truly get our CEOs messages out there, understood, and acted on."

Read more on her blog post.

Sorry to anyone who clicks the link in my comment above. I pasted in the URL, and it took part of Monika's name as well. Here is the main login screen:
http://communicatorsnetwork.smallworldlabs.com

Tom, that is a hilarious scenario. Another analogy is that loan company commercial: "When banks compete, you win."

When CEOs compete, everybody wins.

I'm a capitalist to my marrow. I believe that when someone INVENTS or CREATES something that in turn creates wealth--or even just pretty good jobs--for other people, that person deserves whatever largesse the market bestows upon him or her.

But--and I'm going out on a limb here--NO CEO who is hired into a company, and will probably last for a couple of years at best, deserves $8.3 mill per year. Not even close. They don't take financial risks with their own money that require that kind of salary; by the time they're up to speed with the rest of the employees, they're gone; and no matter how long they last, they'll never be one of the people who do the real work of the company. We all read about high-priced CEOs who mess up; it takes a long time for the board to get rid of them, and they float to earth gently in their golden parachutes.

A communicator who helps a CEO "invent a rationale" for his or her $8.3-million salary in order to keep the peons in Accounting or HR or Service happy has just become a member of the oldest profession. There IS no rationale. Any attempt to "acknowledge the issue" in any "meaningful way" that does not include the words, "I am embarrassed by my salary and intend to split it up among you who are the head, heart, and face of this company" will be seen for exactly the bullshit it is.

Jane, I'd rather be out on the limb with you (ethics intact) than to be in the boardroom as a member of "the oldest profession." Thanks.

But most CEOs will continue to be glad to take the money and parachute--leaving us on the limb.

Well, you're exactly right, Jane. So this is one of the limits of our ability to communicate. Like a family that ignores an abusive alcoholic in its midst, we're hamstrung to some extent by a central, rooted hypocrisy.

Which is why I repeat my headline: Executive compensation IS our problem.

Okay, so William Shatner bursts into the CEO's office with cameras in tow, and performs an intervention that reduces the CEO to a sobbing mass. THEN he beats him about the head and brings in the new CEO at 1/10th the price.

This is compelling advertising.

Subtlety, Tom, subtlety: Shatner puts his hand softly over the CEO's hand, guides him in tendering his resignation, says, "You're so naughty"--and THEN brings in the new CEO.

I agree with most of your individual statements in this post, but I don't come to the same conclusion.

I don't think that it is the responsibility of the communicator to justify the CEO's salary. While we certainly have a responsibility to counsel them and try to influence the way the CEO and remainder of his/her team talk to, and with the employees about our business, I am a firm believer that everyone is responsible for his/her own choices.

For a CEO to accept a multi-million dollar salary, particularly in an environment we're seeing more and more these days, where costs have to be cut, and the jobs of the employees (who do the actual work of delivering what the business does on a daily basis) are being eliminated, is to me reprehensible and the only person responsible to justify that (as if they possibly could) is the person who cashes those cheques.

That said Tom's absolutely right - market forces decide what you can command in a capitalist society, you can't have it both ways. I remember a couple of years ago hearing about a CEO (I wish I could remember who or what company - maybe a car company?) who gave back his salary and bonus because the company was not making the profits it had forecast. Now THAT'S someone worthy of the job of running a company!

I do love the Shatner scenario however, and Bill's from Canada Yay! (Had to throw that in)

It's the CEO's choice but we have to deal with the consequences--the consequences for employee relations. We may not have power to tell a CEO what to do in this regard but we do have a horse in this race and if the executive compensation conversation ever comes up with us in the room, we ought to have a philosophy and some damned good advice.

That's all.

My last corporate job was with a company in which the CEO decided he would no longer take a salary. All of his compensation was (and still is) in stock options, the rationale being that as long as the company continues to perform well under his leadership, then he will continue to make money too.

That sure made it easy for us internal communicators to write about how employees could invest themselves in the business and help it to succeed.

Now, the CEO is a rich guy, no doubt about it. But not many people begrudge him of that wealth because it's the result of the company continuing to perform well in the stock market.

Just when I was starting to think I'd been barking up the wrong tree with this post .... Thanks, Robert.

Kristen - You're probably thinking of Bill Ford. Wish more CEOs would hold themselves this accountable.

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0505/14/A01-180839.htm

This article is from 2005 but it says that Ford hadn't taken a cash salary since he became CEO in 2001. Granted, as a Ford he probably doesn't need the money anyway, but still. What a way to build employee morale.

Another facet to the discussion that points out why the issue is important to the communicators of the organization. Look at Big Oil's attempts to divest themselves of responsibility for the price of gas. "We're not at fault...it's OPEC, or it's those awful refineries, or it's the taxes". I'd say it's hard to buy those arguments when you give your executive a $400 million compensation. That doesn't have an impact on the price of gas? And if I'm the communicator for the company how do I justify that?

Another facet to the discussion that points out why the issue is important to the communicators of the organization. Look at Big Oil's attempts to divest themselves of responsibility for the price of gas. "We're not at fault...it's OPEC, or it's those awful refineries, or it's the taxes". I'd say it's hard to buy those arguments when you give your executive a $400 million compensation. That doesn't have an impact on the price of gas? And if I'm the communicator for the company how do I justify that?

Another facet to the discussion that points out why the issue is important to the communicators of the organization. Look at Big Oil's attempts to divest themselves of responsibility for the price of gas. "We're not at fault...it's OPEC, or it's those awful refineries, or it's the taxes". I'd say it's hard to buy those arguments when you give your executive a $400 million compensation. That doesn't have an impact on the price of gas? And if I'm the communicator for the company how do I justify that?

apologies. System didn't seem to be accepting the post over a couple minutes' time and so I'd hit Post three times

Michael--

Some posts are worth repeating.

David