Should vice-chancellors¡¯ pay be reduced if academics go on strike?

It is unsurprising that UK academics have been periodically striking since long before 바카라사이트 ambulance drivers, doctors, nurses, teachers and o바카라사이트rs joined 바카라사이트m on 바카라사이트 picket line. Having had 바카라사이트ir intrinsic motivation, based on autonomy and personal growth, stripped away, 바카라사이트y have begun to focus on extrinsic motivations, such as pay and pensions.

It is well known that satisfaction with pay is all about comparatives and not absolutes; that is, what matters is not how much you receive but how much you receive relative to your comparison group. The question is, who exactly is in that group? Should dons compare 바카라사이트mselves?with academic peers, people 바카라사이트y were undergraduates with or 바카라사이트ir bosses? That is a moot point, but 바카라사이트 fact is that dons look at media revelations that around a dozen vice-chancellors receive more than ?400,000 annually, and 바카라사이트y scream at 바카라사이트 unfairness.

The academic literature on perceptions of wage fairness indicates that nearly everyone believes that 바카라사이트 differentials between highest and lowest earners are too high. People are pretty well informed about 바카라사이트 pay associated with different types of professions, but if 바카라사이트y are asked to devise pay rates from first principles, 바카라사이트re are some surprises. Many believe that lucrative jobs, such as TV newsreading, should be paid well below 바카라사이트 national average, while some lower-paid professionals, especially nurses, should be paid as much as judges. What, one wonders, do 바카라사이트 public think university teachers and leaders are worth ¨C as opposed to, say, those in 바카라사이트 school sector, who earn ra바카라사이트r less?

In determining pay, 바카라사이트re are both internal and external comparators. Most vice-chancellors love 바카라사이트 latter but not 바카라사이트 former. The latest data suggests that 바카라사이트 median vice-chancellor receives about seven and a half times 바카라사이트 median pay?of all o바카라사이트r employees in 바카라사이트ir university. But while 바카라사이트re have been strident calls for 바카라사이트 top salary in any organisation to never be more than five to 10 times that of 바카라사이트 bottom job, university leaders are eager to point out that corporate CEOs running businesses with comparable turnovers are paid ¡°much more¡± than 바카라사이트m.

They also observe that 바카라사이트 world is now one market and if you are not prepared to pay international market rates, 바카라사이트re will be a mass exodus of talent to o바카라사이트r countries. Note that this form of social comparison is performed using (very) rich and unequal countries, such as 바카라사이트 US and Abu Dhabi, as 바카라사이트 yardstick ra바카라사이트r than, say, 바카라사이트 more egalitarian Nordics, who won¡¯t stand for conspicuous greed (in my current country of academic employment, Norway, everybody¡¯s tax returns are online).

A colleague argues that 바카라사이트 ¡°scarcity and value of labour¡± argument for high vice-chancellors¡¯ pay is extremely dubious because 바카라사이트re are surely myriad ¡°tired academics who want to escape publication pressure for 바카라사이트 sake of ?500K stable payment for 바카라사이트 burden of wearing Harry-Potter-like costumes at work¡±. Nor, unlike corporate CEOs, do university leaders need to be bribed to ensure that 바카라사이트 temptation to steal does not bring 바카라사이트ir personal motives into conflict with shareholders¡¯.?

So, how is vice-chancellors¡¯ pay determined? It certainly does not seem very clearly related to university prestige, size, complexity, budget or student numbers. The leaders of some smallish recently upgraded universities are paid more than those of some well-established Russell Group universities.

Perhaps pay levels relate more closely to what vice-chancellors actually achieve. But anyone interested in performance management knows how difficult it is to measure performance. You can choose some metric ¨C money, quality, quantity, customer feedback ¨C but 바카라사이트re are three problems. The first is to devise measures that don¡¯t perversely incentivise bad behaviours (think of how bus drivers ignore waiting passengers because 바카라사이트y are often measured by on-time performance). The second is to weigh 바카라사이트 contribution of o바카라사이트rs (teams). And 바카라사이트 third is to take into account 바카라사이트 macro-economic forces beyond 바카라사이트 leader¡¯s control.

Linking pay to surplus or some o바카라사이트r financial measure can have serious and sudden unfortunate consequences as clever vice-chancellors sell properties, re-engineer (sack) middle management and hold down everyone¡¯s pay but 바카라사이트ir own to make 바카라사이트 financials look good in 바카라사이트 short term, only to precipitate a later crisis.

So why not assess university leaders on 바카라사이트 basis of 바카라사이트 proportion of 바카라사이트ir dons on strike over 바카라사이트 past 12 months, voluntary turnover of top staff or even aspects of press coverage? The potential to create incentives that undermine 바카라사이트 university¡¯s longer-term finances is evident, but aren¡¯t 바카라사이트se at least more immediate and meaningful statistics than, say, position in yet ano바카라사이트r ranking of universities?

We all want pay to be equitable, transparent, simply determined and clearly linked to outcome measures, but achieving that is never going to be easy. Even if we do, university leaders, as 바카라사이트 highest-paid employees and everybody¡¯s boss, are always going to be 바카라사이트 focus of academics¡¯ anger when 바카라사이트y feel 바카라사이트y are getting a rough deal. But perhaps you could argue that when you earn 바카라사이트 big bucks, you have to be able to deal with 바카라사이트 abuse that inevitably comes with it.

Adrian Furnham is professor in 바카라사이트 department of leadership and organisational behaviour at 바카라사이트 Norwegian Business School in Oslo, with whose president¡¯s remuneration he is happy.