新西兰论文代写：有关CEO薪酬的讨论分析
为了使资本主义有效运作，付给高管的报酬应该与他们对组织的贡献相匹配。但根据对高管薪酬的案例研究，市场已经崩溃，与公司其他员工相比，首席执行官和首席财务官等高管的薪酬很高。
据CNBC报道，2014年a公司CEO的工资是平均产量的373倍，非监督员工的工资是2013年的331倍(Mullaney, 2015)。
虽然支付给股东的薪酬和大多数公司的股价都在下降，但ceo的薪酬却在逐年上升。许多人认为，由于股东的回报不高，ceo的薪酬也必须与他们的业绩更加匹配，他们更愿意承担风险，他们的薪酬规模应该更大，反之亦然(Lavalle, 2001)。但在过去20年里，高管们的薪酬未能与其业绩相符。一些人指出，当涉及到高管薪酬时，市场是破碎的(Wade, et.al, 2006)。供给侧与需求侧不能很好地相交。
供应并不缺乏，也没有证据表明高薪酬与他们的表现相符。但是，根据薪酬的概念，高层管理人员在现实世界中面临着使不同的战略发挥作用的巨大压力，他们必须承受大量的紧张、长时间的工作压力和与组织绩效相关的不同形式的风险。但这些高管并不是公司的所有者;公司的实际所有者是股东(见Oyer, 2004)。董事会委派首席执行官代表股东履行职责，从而决定股东的薪酬。但实际上，首席执行官的行为就像公司的所有者，而董事的行为也有利于高管，而不是股东，从而对他们的利益产生了负面影响。因此，在美国，限制CEO薪酬的建议，但在良好的经济条件下受到了高度的批评。据说，在完全竞争的情况下，市场将自动得到纠正，高管的薪酬将根据他们的边际产品，即根据他们的业绩和对各自组织的贡献来支付，这也包括照顾股东的利益。但市场是一个不完全竞争的地方，ceo们的薪酬往往远远高于他们应得的，或者换句话说，远远高于他们对公司业绩的贡献。
为了让ceo们保持积极性，更加努力地工作，为组织的改善做出积极的贡献，公司必须相应地支付他们报酬(Lavalle, 2001)。因为他们带来了巨大的经验和知识，并与组织的其他员工分享，但管理层也应该照顾股东的利益，首席执行官是为他们任命的。因此，高管的薪酬必须符合行业标准，他们也应该根据代表他们在市场上所代表的公司承担的风险金额得到补偿(Gelina和Baillargeon, 2013)。
新西兰论文代写 ：有关CEO薪酬的讨论 分析
In order to make capitalism work efficiently rewards paid to the executives should match with what they contribute towards their organization. But according to the case study when it about executives pay the market is broken and executives like the CEOs and CFOs are paid hugely compared to the other employees of the company.
According to a CNBC report the salary of the a CEO 373 times more than the average production and that of the non-supervisory employees in the year 2014 and it is more than 331 times high than that of the year 2013 (Mullaney, 2015).
Though the pay to the shareholders and share prices of majority of the companies are down but still the compensation of the CEOs are going up year after year. It is urged by many that since the returns of the shareholders are failing the compensation of the CEOs must also match their performance more they are ready to take risks more should be their reward size and vice versa (Lavalle, 2001). But in the last 20 years the pay of the executives failed to match that of their performances. Some stated that the market is broken when it comes to executives’ remunerations (Wade, et.al, 2006). The supply side do not intersect the demand side properly.
There is no lack of supply and there is no evidence that paying high match their performance. But according to the concepts of compensation the top level executives are under considerable pressure for making different strategies work in practical world, they have to take a lot of tension, long time work pressure and different forms of risks related to the performance of the organization. But the executives are not the owners of the company; the actually owner of the company are the shareholders (See Oyer, 2004). The directors of the board appoint the CEO on behalf of the shareholders to perform and thus their compensation are decided. But in reality the CEOs behave like the owner of the companies and the directors also behave in favour of the executives rather than for the shareholders thus adversely affecting their interests. So in the USA capping was suggested for CEO compensation but it was highly criticized during good economic condition. It is said that in case of perfect competition the market will get corrected automatically where payments of executives will be done as per their marginal product i.e. as per their performance and contribution towards their respective organizations which also includes taking care of the interests of the shareholders. But market is a place imperfect competition where CEOs are often paid much higher than what they deserve or in other words much more than what they contribute towards the performance of the company.
To keep the CEOs motivated and work harder and contribute positively towards the betterment of the organizations the company must pay them accordingly (Lavalle, 2001). Since they bring with them huge experiences and knowledge and share it with the rest of the employees of the organization but the management should also take care of the interests of the shareholders for whom the CEOs are appointed. So the executives must be paid as per the industry standards and they should also be compensated to the amount of risks that they undertake on behalf of the company they are representing in the market (Gelina and Baillargeon, 2013).
