More on Randomness - Top Jobs
Since my now six-year-old daughter visited my office some time ago, her inquisitive mind has begun to put me on the spot, when she often asks me what do I actually do, or how do I know what I should do in my office - the kind of question which I recall a past CEO liked to ask us! Although I don't need to consult my "key result areas" to answer her, introducing my role at work in such a way to make her understand is rather thought-provoking. I used no cliche' or platitude, nothing in the language of achieving targets, excelling in customer service, improving productivity, boosting morale, or adding value. Still, she didn't seem to quite get it when I told her that: "I need to make sure that our business is good...I read reports to review what we have done well and what we have not done so well, in which case, what we should do to change and improve things...I talk to people and ask them what they have done well and what they have not done so well, in which case, what they should do to change and improve things..."
Perhaps the elusiveness of office work does not escape the inquisitiveness of even a six-year-old kid. Indeed, not that I am anywhere close to the pinnacle of the company I work for, the paradox is that the higher up one is on the corporate ladder, the less specifically defined ones job tends to be. As such, more mind-boggling to many people in the rank and file is the disproportionately increasing proportion of the CEO's pay to that of someone at the corporate base, where results are actually far more directly related to a person's contribution of manpower than are at the top. Up there, the cause and effect of any strategy, judgement or skill to an outcome of company's performance can hardly be validated, although back-fitting explanation can always be made for any observable results. In honouring CEOs with fat cheques of remuneration, are shareholders really sensible or, as Nassim Nicholas Taleb cynically suggested, "fooled by randomness"?
But I also recall that Tim Harford wrote in "The Logic of Life" on "why your boss gets paid more than you do?" - so that you get motivated and work hard to be in her place one day.
As a corporate guy, of course I can readily quash the cynicism and feel for the top job - with its returns, privileges and status - as I can readily make up and interpret a justification for the honoured role. For good or bad results, someone just has to be in charge - to claim the credit or take the responsibility (at least to find the plausible explanation). If the price is not right, why would anyone bother too much beyond ones small role of contribution?
After all, executive pays are market-driven in general. I think "excess" itself is not as much an issue as how a remuneration is structured and what kind of behaviour it may lead to. In any case, no incumbent of any top job should take his position for granted or his authority too seriously - beware of randomness and be grateful to destiny.
Perhaps the elusiveness of office work does not escape the inquisitiveness of even a six-year-old kid. Indeed, not that I am anywhere close to the pinnacle of the company I work for, the paradox is that the higher up one is on the corporate ladder, the less specifically defined ones job tends to be. As such, more mind-boggling to many people in the rank and file is the disproportionately increasing proportion of the CEO's pay to that of someone at the corporate base, where results are actually far more directly related to a person's contribution of manpower than are at the top. Up there, the cause and effect of any strategy, judgement or skill to an outcome of company's performance can hardly be validated, although back-fitting explanation can always be made for any observable results. In honouring CEOs with fat cheques of remuneration, are shareholders really sensible or, as Nassim Nicholas Taleb cynically suggested, "fooled by randomness"?
But I also recall that Tim Harford wrote in "The Logic of Life" on "why your boss gets paid more than you do?" - so that you get motivated and work hard to be in her place one day.
As a corporate guy, of course I can readily quash the cynicism and feel for the top job - with its returns, privileges and status - as I can readily make up and interpret a justification for the honoured role. For good or bad results, someone just has to be in charge - to claim the credit or take the responsibility (at least to find the plausible explanation). If the price is not right, why would anyone bother too much beyond ones small role of contribution?
After all, executive pays are market-driven in general. I think "excess" itself is not as much an issue as how a remuneration is structured and what kind of behaviour it may lead to. In any case, no incumbent of any top job should take his position for granted or his authority too seriously - beware of randomness and be grateful to destiny.
Comments