« Why We Should Rethink Employee Years of Service Programs | Main | Putting on Your Explorer Cap: Appreciative Inquiry for the Compensation Pro »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Lies, damn lies and statistics! For too long we've had a love affair with statistics. Even "shaky correlation" is hyped as "cause".


CEO ratio: Of course all three may be correct so it is important to understand the source, what is included, the sample, and why they are reporting the data.
A gut instinct suggests the ratios are too high to be maintained, especially for CEOs who are really employees/managers with special skills like most others rather than entrepreneurs who invest their whole being to developing their company.

Thanks Jacque,

As someone wise once told me.
"Sooner or later it will rain. Just because you are dancing when it starts, doesn't mean your dancing had something to do with it."

Cause and effect is often in the eye of the beholder (or in this case, dancer)


Quite likely all three are perfectly accurate and essential not useful. I do agree that huge spreads between CEO pay and average worker pay are unlikely to be in the best long-term interests of anyone. But, until one of the two following things happen we won't see a major change.

1) people at the top need to see their returns reduced as a result of the spread.

2) Workers need to make it a point to not work for companies with such large spreads.

The comments to this entry are closed.