It is often argued by many that employees higher up in the organizational command chain being paid more in contrast to those lower down in command is a positive trend. I agree that paying CEO's and FA's more money than new recruits is completely justified.
Firstly, those higher up in the hierarchy have been working for many more years than those lower down. Therefore, they offer more experience. Which means, they are more valuable to companies and have more to offer in terms of knowledge and wisdom. In addition to this, their positions require more effort and skills that they have acquired over time. For this reason they should be compensated financially for their hard duties. Furthermore, these employees usually work longer hours and take their work home. For Instance, by Microsoft, Bill gates, the CEO of the organization, who is on duty 18 hours per day, as well as, has the most computer knowledge background as opposed to the people working underneath him. Consequently, he is paid 6 million dollars per year. Overall, it is good that employees are paid based on how much they deserve.
Secondly, when junior staff sees their seniors earning so much, they are encouraged to work harder to reach their positions. Creating a sense of encouragement and motivation, in turn, they become more ambitious. Although their monthly allowance is not as high, it is fair, because they know through perseverance they will climb up in the system. For example, a world known publication in 2016, Maslows hierarchy of needs, puts self- actualization at the top of the chart, above esteem, this means that people are motivated to push forward and become recognized, thus earning more as they go along. Overall, those in lower positions are worthy of lower salaries.
In a nutshell, the reimbursement of top dog employees with bigger fortunes as opposed to new interns is an overall an advantageous progression.
It is
often
argued by
many
that
employees
higher up in the organizational command chain
being paid
more
in contrast
to those lower down in command is a
positive
trend. I
agree
that paying CEO's and FA's more money than new recruits is completely justified.
Firstly
, those higher up in the hierarchy have been working for
many
more years than those lower down.
Therefore
, they offer more experience. Which means, they are more valuable to
companies
and have more to offer in terms of knowledge and wisdom.
In addition
to this, their positions require more effort and
skills
that they have acquired over time.
For this reason
they should
be compensated
financially
for their
hard
duties.
Furthermore
, these
employees
usually
work longer hours and take their work home.
For Instance
, by Microsoft,
Bill gates
, the CEO of the organization, who is on duty 18 hours per day,
as well
as, has the most computer knowledge background as opposed to the
people
working underneath him.
Consequently
, he
is paid
6 million dollars per year.
Overall
, it is
good
that
employees
are paid
based on how much they deserve.
Secondly
, when junior staff
sees
their seniors earning
so
much, they
are encouraged
to work harder to reach their positions. Creating a sense of encouragement and motivation, in turn, they become more ambitious. Although their monthly allowance is not as high, it is
fair
,
because
they know through perseverance they will climb up in the system.
For example
, a world known publication in 2016,
Maslows
hierarchy of needs, puts self- actualization at the top of the chart, above esteem, this means that
people
are motivated
to push forward and become recognized,
thus
earning more
as
they go along.
Overall
, those in lower positions are worthy of lower salaries.
In a nutshell, the reimbursement of top dog
employees
with bigger fortunes as opposed to new interns is an
overall
an advantageous progression.