It is very worthwhile to try and wean boards and executives off their obsession with remuneration, but I am not sure if James' approach will work because it seems to be premised on the assumption that CEOS are ultimately striving for their own happiness.

Whilst it is fair to assume that the average reasonable person seeks to maximise their own happiness, the CEOs of large companies are often neither average nor reasonable, and when it comes to understanding happiness I think many of them are well below par. CEOs are frequently selected because their primary goal is not happiness but success for its own sake. Since our society associates success with wealth it is no surprise that some of those who want to be sucessful feel they can only do so by earning lots of money.

If this is true the only way to address the situation would be to;
1. Choose CEOs and boards who are reasonable and have a balanced approach to life and therefore value happiness over success - not likely to go down well with the shareholders.
2. Reverse the trend of the last 40 years and reprogram society to define success in terms of things other than fame and money - this would be wonderful but I can't see how it can happen.

Andrew ! you raise some very tantalizing points.

In fact, you gave a good commentary on human nature as much as anything.

You outline a possible solution, but cannot see how it can occurr.
Mainly because people define happiness in terms of fame and wealth, which is at odds with the idea of a 'holistic' approach to company mangement where 'happiness' might be considered a worthy goal to strive for.

May I venture a comment on the attitude which is expected of CEO's in terms of maximizing shareholder value, often irrespective of the social cost, such as where tobacco companies are struggling for a growth market in say the more chemically enlightened western countries yet they will advance their products of death in 3rd world countries and smile all the way to the bank.

In other words, this is basically the philosophy of Jean Paul Sartre and others, where morality is totally relative, and meaningless anyway.

It has taken a while, but such philosophies are slowly filtering down into the minds of people via the media, art, education. Specially since the 60s.

I almost rolled around the floor with laughter when I read the phrase 'science of happiness' in the article, as IF suddenly we are discovering what it is all about. We've known about true happiness all along, we are by and large just in denial.

I present Christ, and the example and the enabler of true happiness.
For the CEO's read John 10 "And he took a towell, ... and washed the disciples feet" and "I came not to be served, but to serve" and "I came that they might have life, and that in all its abundance"

for all of us I suggest an internalization of Pauls prayer in Ephesians 3

see part 2 please

continued... Pauls prayer

For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom his whole family[a] in heaven and on earth derives its name. I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.

Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.

Wow ! not bad I reckon. won't be everyone's cuppa of course, but for those of us who know this experience of life, its full on.

Your comment about 'for the past 40 yrs' was interesting. Its been pretty much that time since we threw out the baby with the bathwater of our parents values. I lived it all, 16 yrs old in 1965, watched it till now.

I add the point, that we need more than just a 'positive' concept of CEO, we also need One who can give people a reason to embrace such.

I'll probably get 'crucified' by the 'red brigades' for this post :) but never mind

Then Aragorn, being now the Heir of Isildur, was taken with his mother to dwell in the house of Elrond; and Elrond took the place of his father and came to love him as a son of his own. But he was called Estel, that is "Hope", and his true name and lineage were kept secret at the bidding of Elrond; for the Wise then knew that the Enemy was seeking to discover the Heir of Isildur, if any remained upon earth.

Elrond saw many things and read many hearts. One day, therefore, before the fall of the year he called Aragorn to his chamber, and he said: "Aragorn, Arathorn's son, Lord of the Dúnedain, listen to me! A great doom awaits you, either to rise above the height of all your fathers since the days of Elendil, or to fall into darkness with all that is left of your kin. Many years of trial lie before you. You shall neither have wife, nor bind any woman to you in troth, until your time comes and you are found worthy of it."

Then Aragorn took leave lovingly of Elrond; and the next day he said farewell to his mother, and to the house of Elrond, and to Arwen, and he went out into the wild. For nearly thirty years he laboured in the cause against Sauron; and he became a friend of Gandalf the Wise, from whom he gained much wisdom. With him he made many perilous journeys, but as the years wore on he went more often alone. His ways were hard and long, and he became somewhat grim to look upon, unless he chanced to smile; and yet he seemed to Men worthy of honour, as a king that is in exile, when he did not hide his true shape. For he went in many guises, and won renown under many names.

To all those overpaid CEO's

"You will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you." (Deuteronomy 28:53) - whatever that means.

or alternatively ;-)

"The Road goes ever on and on
Out from the door where it began.
Now far ahead the Road has gone,
Let others follow it who can!
Let them a journey new begin,
But I at last with weary feet
Will turn towards the lighted inn,
My evening-rest and sleep to meet."

Thank you Garra for showing me the way.

If only the CEO's would study their LOTR the world would be a happier place.

garra, thanks for the enlightening and moving reading. I'm touched.

CEO performance pays. I have my doubts that many will trade pay for job satisfaction, the job satisfaction thing seems to be a line HR types keep for those lower in the food chain.

I would like to see the performance pays for executives evaluated and paid much later. How is the company doing 5 years from when the CEO did their thing? It seems fairly easy for the short term slash and burn types to come in for a few years, achieve massive cost savings and meet performance targets then move on before the poo hits the fan.

Meanwhile the company has been almost run into the ground, staff have been hurt etc. The customers may or not may that they have been done for a while yet.

In theory the changes a CEO makes should relate to the long term health of the company, not short term targets. Pay them that way and we might see much healthier corporate environments.

R0bert

It seems that the pay some CEOs receive for doing their job is exceeded only by the pay they receive when they get the sack.

For shareholders of large publicly listed companies it is their destiny to get screwed. Which I would not mind so much if it were not for compulsory superannuation

In these changing time where we have our Australian Government advertising with our tax dollars about our duty in changing the IR awards for the good for our economy, they first and foremost need to start with the executives.

And if they come the nonsense that nobody will do a good job if they don't pay them millions, they should look for an internal promotion from the bottom of their company tree who is actually doing the job for him/her.

Lets look at who pays the CEO’s of both private companies and public listed companies.

It is not a public debate – the matter of executive salaries is a private matter between the owners of the corporation and the executive on whose (perceived) skills they intend to rely.

What I or anyone else feels about the salary package of any CEO does not matter – unless we are a shareholder of the employing entity – and if some shareholder thinks a CEO is being paid more than he is worth – they are best to liquidate their holding and find something else to invest in before their thoughts are realised and the stock falls in value.

The reason anyone does anything is complex and multiply motivated. I agree with the author, thinking any executive is motivated solely by financial reward is to display a paucity of comprehension about people, a total cynicism to their motives and complete ignorance to the meaning of the word “motivation” – remember the remuneration package is only ever payable based on performance – no performance means no cash-flow available to meet the payment.

Without disrespect regarding your comment and a broad job discription of a CEO position.

It has become a public debate through media and shareholders. The debate continues as the public are now asked on behalf of our current Government to make changes to an Australian award system for the betterment of the Australian Economy.

If indeed it is a private matter between the business and the CEO, the public must now reason why the "Business" feels compelled to make such a large contribution and accumulation of wealth to one person, if indeed there is a crisis with business and the affordability of Labour cost structuring and the Flexibity to sack employees at a profit and Loss reports notice as an effective way to change a printed report.

We have seen too many incidences in the media and newspapers on white collar crime and insider trading(the latest is a high profile,celebrity who is due to attend court) not to now start questioning why Business and its executives are choosing to pay themselves large sums of money at the expediture of community and consumer service. And how the forethought is always focused on shareholders pcokets.

Let us face it, the true winner in the stockmarket will be the holder of many shares with lots of capital to back themselves up.

The average person in the street will contribute to the stockmarkets shares(fodder), maybe to be a small time winner but to allow others up the ladder of influence, the additional funds to fund their extravagant lifestyles.

That is why I propose a new Tax system. The electronic debit tax

Col, the definition of performance can miss the mark at times. Short term targets can be achieved at the long term expense of the company.

It should also be noted that some of these corporations are semi government. The legal shareholders are govt ministers, the real shareholders are the tax payers.

Part of the debate involves the balance between free market and social responsibility. Not an issue which is going to be covered adequately in 350 word snipets (I don't have the answers anyway).

R0bert

Robert - sure "performance" misses the mark and the CEO miss out on the performance bonus - seems fair to me - be the institution a public, semi-public or private venture.

Agree totally the determination of performance measure needs a lot more work – I tend toward growth in net asset worth rather than share price and certain other triple – bottom – line analysis are a better medium term measure than current years profit (after manipulation / changes to accounting policies), noting 3BL includes some recognition of social responsibility

I just want to put 3 thoughts forward

What if we used after tax and plus welfare for the wage over the time period mentioned. A very different answer I am sure.

Second is it seems as we regulate more benefits to the lower end of the labour market, it only increases the top end more.

Why is it that the primary sector has to bear the brunt of the world market for is income, quite different for the domestic market situation where regulations allow for incomes to rise with inflation. (This includes tax in the sale price)