Human capital experts tell the world that the payment structure in a workplace is based on a logical formula consisting of complex variables namely the function complexity, skill scarcity, skill criticality, undesirability, risk, accountability and responsibility. It is rational expectation that the higher the indicator on a variable the higher the compensation.
It is also sensible to conclude that work experience and academic qualifications assist the recruiters to determine the best candidate for the position. This skill and credential matrix is forwarded in sophisticated microeconomic platforms as the foundation for the remuneration system.
The majority of workplace participants believe that the current remuneration structure is natural. It is accepted as the only way to determine appropriate remuneration. The corporate captains and industry bosses on the top of the remuneration scale vow that they perform the most complex functions. They say they possess the scarcest skills and hold the highly undesirable jobs. It is their strong view that their position put them in the highest category of health, emotional and physical risk. It is killing a sacred cow to question superiority of accountability and responsibility levels of members at the top of industry echelon. But is this myth really true?