Agree, as a manager of 15 people, there's 1 or 2 superstars I would say pay them almost whatever they want - if they demanded it (which they don't). They're worth it. Only true for the highest performers however.
Assuming its my company and we're a small outfit I'd love to have them but I wouldn't pay 3x (or even 2x) overhead.
1) At a 3x salary you'll need to lose two other employees and sacrifice the redundancy, idea mix etc that you point out. Reducing the HR etc overhead by two employees is far less of a gain.
2) Their higher output is going to be at least partially due to more intensive work habits which may not be sustainable over the long run.
3) If they ever decide to move on you need to hire three replacements and hope they work out and can take over from your superstar without losing too much momentum (all without ever meeting the guy since its unlikely you'll find & hire them within his two week notice period).
Yes, and here's why. it's not about project productivity, it's about building your company. "A" players hire "A" players. "B" player hire "C" players. "C" Players don't want to look bad so they hire "F" players.
That being said, I wouldn't pay them 3x in straight salary. Equity and profit sharing is a better motivator.
Imagine a company doing $12 billion in yearly revenue. If "the right guy" manages the joint, it will do $11 billion. Are you willing to pay 10 million a year for this person?
It's about supply and demand. If he really is the best person for the job, then there's nothing to be gained from paying him a higher fixed salary. But if there's someone else who's even marginally better that you can get for $10M, it's probably easily worth it - for the size of the fund, one person's pay is a negligible amount.
Honestly, these salaries seem like a lot as is, from where I come from.
Instead of guessing what's a fair pay wouldn't be better to pay or get paid on results - revenue you bring in. The marketing director or others in the team are close enough (in terms of agency they have on revenue) to revenue generation that this should be possible, no?
Everyone has a price. For that many millions, lots of people would do it, especially if the alternative was someone else getting the millions and everyone getting fired anyway.
Maybe, and this might be a controversial take, nobody should be paid $105 million - because maybe nobody is actually generating that much value on their own.
I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with this. It seems like you would have to 'perform' for an even wider range of people in order to get paid what you deserve.
reply