Well I'm really surprised at that

I remember reading about this at least a decade ago, but I guess more evidence never hurts. Perhaps this time people will start listening?

If I remember correctly one of the other newspapers did a similar survey @ 10 years ago, The Times, perhaps, and they came to precisely the same conclusion.

I think executive pay rises should be linked to employee rises. If they can't afford to give the employees a pay rise then they can't afford to give the board a pay rise either.

The whole mantra of "having to pay the best to get the best" is a real busted flush now.

Indeed, also they shouldn't get a raise if they have lots of forced redundancies either.

The whole belief that performance related pay improves performance is actually false as well (and that applies to everyone not just executives). In fact it's been shown many times to damage performance in the long term.

The problem with performance related pay is that it rarely measures performance only some form of simplified targets to be reached which don't relate to the complexity of the job. The only accurate performance related pay is piece work.

Even that's debatable. The shoddier delivery firms have sort of proven this by paying people a pittance per parcel. Output increases, and therefore so does pay, at the expense of quality. Parcels lobbed onto people's roofs or put into bins because they don't get paid unless it's "delivered"

No doubt, those same firms seem to find the cash to pay the directors handsomely

The high executive pay in the UK is he main reason I don't think many UK companies will relocate to an EU one after Brexit, as Germany is the second biggest payer and that is 50% lower than the UK on average, I can't see the greedy gits moving and taking pay cuts.

I quite like that idea

Another could be that any company that has had to lay off staff costs their executives their bonus. I've always taken the view that whenever a company announces redundancies, it is an admission of failure right from the top. To me it is indicative of poor planning and forecasting, declining business due to poor customer service, brand damage or failing to keep a pace with competitors and offering desirable products and services.

I kid you not, I was working at a FTSE 100 company that announced huge unexpected losses one year and their share price bombed. All staff bonuses were cancelled that year. Except the CEO who got his, because his performance targets were based on customer service!!! Not the companies financial performance! Talk about a set up. Was obvious they knew a bombshell was coming, so the chairman made absolutely sure the CEO was given a performance related pay target that would still allow him to collect his £2mil in shares or whatever.

The only type of CEO I respect are those heading businesses that they personally founded. All the rest of the CEO's for hire are just pure scum to me, earning their roles through connections and the old boys club.

I too have been saying this for years. Maybe I am a closet "expert"

This is normal. Executives are set a number of targets, so if the company performance is bad, there are still targets that are met, so they still get a bonus in cash ore shares or both.
As a member of the Co-op I'm still fuming at an executive leaving, of her choice, after just 11 months and getting a years salary in lieu of notice, 6 months 'gardening leave' and a 'long term bonus' of another years salary. Long term bonus after 11 months!

I'm sure they would say it is justified because British companies are 50% better though...