C Suite, worthy or effective ?

C Suite, worthy or effective ?

balatti board member compensation time result

MALTAway is your way to Corporate & Assets Governance

A corporate co-worker friend used to complain about the dirty looks he got sitting in his office reading The Wall Street Journal. As the corporate media relations manager, he was charged with the responsibility of knowing current industry trends, responding to business publicity developments and personally handling stockholder relations. That duty required keeping up to date on financial news so he could respond appropriately with his subsequent communications; but he appeared “lazy” to others. They judged without full knowledge, letting an impression based on false premises bias their assessments.

Passersby disapproved of his apparent neglect ofImportant Business (whatever that means). Many suit-wearing people found in stiff-necked corporate headquarters seem to jump to conclusions based on quick superficial judgments. After all, anyone with an office in the C suite must be focused, intense and harried … right? Well, such self-important executives certainly expect their peers to be seen acting a certain way in order to be deemed worthy. It is not enough to be effective; you must also LOOK busy.

Arriving early and leaving late in order to be witnessed “working” on site might be passé in this era of remote access and virtual office relationships, but the old attitudes about appearances trumping reality still linger in many organizations … and are increasingly reflected in labor laws. As discussed before, American employers face increased pressures to substitute the superficial external accidents (in metaphysical terms) of work for the fundamental essential necessities that create economic justifications for compensation.

Government prefers that wages should be decoupled from productivity output and based on process inputs like time instead. That kind of thinking can usually be ignored when it is merely theoretical (unless you are deeply immersed in transactional communication or philosophical debates). But when the context is a rule controlling the compensation element of human resource management, it demands our close attention.

What counts for worker compensation is an important question. Modern management theory has emphasized results produced, but the American regulations governing worker payments require (with limited exceptions) that remuneration be rationed by time spent rather than related to the production generated from that work time. Business values work results; government insists pay be based on time spent working. When regulators order employers to ignore results in favor of measuring methods, it creates a dramatic dissonance in occupational job evaluation priorities – and perhaps even in worker behaviors.

This resonates in certain cultures where compensation is based on behaviors rather than on objective productivity. In some societies:
· how something is done is more important than what is accomplished;
· external trappings outweigh essential elements;
· academic theory displaces practical experience;
· style takes priority over substance;
· and appearance trumps reality.

Those are not the principles found in the reward programs that have successfully created the major economies of the world. Cultures that place primacy on input methods over output results tend to flounder and struggle in their futile attempts at prosperity. Similarly, enterprises that value worker inputs more than outputs find it difficult to survive. Managers who routinely confront these issues understand what is at stake. Evaluation concepts are relevant to business decisions like what skills are needed for mission accomplishment, how individual employee performance is evaluated for adequacy and what is required for correction/improvement.

Take a moment to consider what we value, because it is not always what we pay for. Have we lost sight of where we want to go? Can we find our direction any more?



Are they Overpaying the New CEO (MSFT)? As a shareholder do you approve the scheme?

Compared To Apple And Yahoo, Are they Overpaying the New CEO (MSFT)? 
With Nadella, Microsoft has crafted a brand new pay-for-performance model.

Investor watchdog organization Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) caused a stir last week by telling Microsoft investors that Satya Nadella’s pay package was too high.

Nadella was granted a starter kit of stock valued at about $65 million which won’t begin to vest until 2019. Plus, he got another one-time stock grant worth $13.5 million in August 2013 to keep him around during the CEO search process. It vests over seven years.

In 2014, his base salary is $918,917 for a role he assumed in February. (ISS calculates his full year base at $1.2 million) and a cash bonus of $3.6 million.

So Nadella will be eligible for an annual $13.2 million stock award, with a complicated vesting schedule, that he’ll unlock if he hits certain performance targets.

“Over 80% of the reward opportunity is performance-based measured by our total shareholder return (“TSR”) relative to the S&P 500. To earn the target value of this award, Microsoft’s TSR must exceed the 60th percentile of the S&P 500 over each of three overlapping five-year performance periods that extend to 2021

By the way, Microsoft also agreed to a $17.4 million golden parachute.


  • Oracle is paying its new co-CEOs Safra Catz and Mark Hurd $37.7 million apiece for their first year. That was a pay cut from $44 million the year before. (Larry Ellison is making $67 million in 2014).
  • Tim Cook was granted a staggering $378 million one-time stock grant when he took over as CEO, which has vastly grown in value. Between a $4 million salary and about $70 million of his stock options that vested, he made $74 million in 2013.
  • Marissa Mayer was paid $36.6 million her first year as the CEO of Yahoo.


The Highest-Paying Programming Languages You Should Learn, Ranked By Salary

Based on that data, here are programming languages listed next to their average annual salary from lowest to highest:

12. PERL – $82,513

11. SQL – $85,511

10. Visual Basic – $85,962

9. C# – $89,074

8. R- $90,055

7. C – 90,134

6. JavaScript – $91,461

5. C++ – $93,502

4. JAVA – $94,908

3. Python – $100,717

2. Objective C – $108,225

1. Ruby on Rails – $109,460

While some of these coding languages can help you earn $100,000, train to become a Salesforce architect if you want one of the highest-paying jobs in tech and you can earn between $180,000 and $200,000.


The 10 Highest-Paying Jobs For Math Geeks

Are you good with numbers, data, or spreadsheets? Don’t be afraid to show off your skills — as it turns out, being a “math geek” is quite lucrative. 

New data from PayScale reports that the median salary for math majors is $70,900 — compared to a median salary of $58,600 for all college grads. Some professions, such as data scientists and quantitative analysts, are even higher, with median salaries upwards of $100,000.


Highest Paying Jobs for Math Geeks

Tech Pay Hits A New Record: This Is What Software Engineers Earn BEFORE Their Bonuses

The average base salary of a software engineer in the US is getting closer to $100,000. This year, the average is $97,098, up just a few dollars from the year before.

European engineers, however, earn a lot less. But they did get a big boost in base pay this year: Salaries in Europe average €43,536 ($55,329) before bonuses are paid, up 9% from €39,498 ($50,198) in 2013.


Glassdoor tech salaries comparison nologo

The golden rules for a compensation system that strikes the fine balance between a startup’s needs and keeping employees happy.

The golden rules for a compensation system that strikes the fine balance between a startup’s needs and keeping employees happy.

“You can’t be transparent if you’re not paying fair, and if you are, there’s no reason to not be transparent.”

“Most startups overpay for talent because they undervalue their own equity — so the candidate will too,”

“You should not lose candidates because another startup at a similar stage is paying them more cash.”


1) No one is ever happy with compensation, and compensation has never made anyone happy

2) People always find out what everyone else is making.

3) Create a system that revisits compensation only 1-2x a year.

4) On the spectrum between formulaic and discretionary compensation, be as formulaic as you can.