Aveo = GM = Followers not leaders

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by TLyttle

If top management was limited to 20 times the lowest wage in the plant, only then would progress be made. I ain't holding my breath.

I don't see any connection between CEO compensation and the performance of a company.

I have yet to see any studies that show CAUSALITY between CEO pay and a company's performance, as in if you go above twenty to one that the company suffers. Exxon-Mobil's CEO makes a huge amount of money and that firm, at least until recently, was doing fine.

I don't think that Toyota's CEO is paid hundreds of times more money than their janitorial staff. Most Japanese firms have far more modest CEO compensation than US firms.

However that ratio doesn't begin to show the differences from Toyota and, say, GM or Exxon-Mobil.

What does seem to matter is the ability of a company to respond to market demands and to satisfy consumer needs.

Toyota focuses on the market and consumer needs, from the CEO down to the lowliest worker. When gas prices went high this summer they were able to re-tool a line in THREE WEEKS to make smaller cars.

Could GM do this? Dunno.

One does wonder what GM focuses on. There are probably staff at GM, both hourly and salaried, who care very much about customers. I suspect, given how GM has been doing and the kind of stuff that they sell (I was a Chevy and Pontiac guy until my first Honda in 2000) that there is a lot more at work here than CEO compensation. Especially a toxic sense of complacency amongst management and workers.


Mentioning such ratios tend to inflame envy and anger, especially in workers who think "Management is stealing our money!". Such an entitlement mentality does not serve the customer or even the worker's long term interests.

This all being said, I wouldn't object to a CEO making 100 times more than the Janitor, but if I were a shareholder they damn well better be earning their keep.

I think most of here would agree that the CEO of GM isn't earning their money.

Gene