A culture of "business-is-about-making-money".

A CULTURE OF "BUSINESS-IS-ABOUT-MAKING-MONEY"

The company's senior executives convinced themselves of the relative value of their contribution to the organization's performance. They quickly subscribed, more than twice over, to the great principle of "Pay-for-Performance". The result is a culture of "business-is-about-making-money" and "management-is-about-meeting-the-target". Studies continue to show that the performance of senior executives only occasionally has a major impact, if ever it was permanently applicable to each of them, on the value of the listed security. It is the market that makes the quotation, not the executives. There is no question here of the marked impact on the stock of a momentary decision, or a negative announcement on the projections for a financial year on the company's activity. No, it is a question of ongoing performance on the evolution of the stock, because of policies decided by the organization's chief executive officer, on which he bases his "competence" and of course his "performance" - both of which are more often alleged than demonstrated.

ALLEGED OR VERIFIED PERFORMANCE?

Studies have shown that, at best, the organization, and not the CEO alone, would be responsible for 30% of the value of the listed security, with the remainder attributed to general economic or industry conditions and financial market fluctuations. Moreover, executive compensation cannot reasonably be determined based on future performance on the job, even if it is based on scholarly calculations of assumed performance after the end of the fiscal year. We say deemed performance because it is assumed rather than audited. As for the stock's progression to the rating, the famous shareholder value, it is falsely attributed solely to the genius of the organization's chief executive officer.

IS A POSITION WORTH TWO THOUSAND JOBS?

The job pyramid requires that the CEO make the final decision; therefore, it is assumed that the result of the activity and business must be attributed to the CEO. And suppose this does not satisfy everyone in principle, in practice. In that case, the greatest risk assumed by the CEO in the execution of his mandate is invoked to justify his gigantic emoluments. As if the activity and the business, which, by the way, is only ever accomplished thanks to the entire staff of the organization, should not lead to a distribution of the risk and the effort it requires to be accomplished. Why, then, should rewards for work favor the top of the organizational pyramid, according to the importance of the positions occupied, when fair compensation for work would imply a downward division of income, according to the importance of the risk and effort assumed by everyone? Would one position (executive) be worth two thousand jobs (staff) because there will be an aggregation of decision-making authority upwards, while there will be a downward distribution of risk in the organization?

THERE IS A LACK OF GAUGE AND EVEN MORE JUDGMENT

The performance claims are widely present in the circles of top organizational management. However, evidence of superior performance on the job is lamentably lacking in the entire senior management community. There is no justifiable double standard, in terms of risk and effort at work, depending on who has the power to impose conditions of employment on others while exempting themselves from such conditions. There is a lack of gauge, and even more judgment, in the allocation of risk and work effort, and even more so in the recognition of contributions to performance on activity and business to the detriment of the greatest number in the organization. The level (rank) of position does not automatically result in an equal burden of risk and effort to the task. All staff, globally speaking, assume a level of risk and effort far greater than any CEO in any organization. Yet the compensation ratio is unquestionably skewed in favor of the CEO, who ultimately decides how the benefits are distributed throughout the organization. In short, the CEO takes, and the staff gives! Distributive justice does not exist anymore than prescriptive justice in the typical organization.