Need to check if your IT deductions are right? Nithyanand Yeswanth, a software professional from Bangalore, has put together a handy Indian Income Tax Calculator for Salaried Individuals. The Income Tax Calculator has been built in the form of an Excel sheet and we’ve shared the same here.

(Link via Joe Felix)

Going by the comments in this discussion, neck-ties seem to be out of vogue. Do participate in the discussion here and tell us what you think.

• Joe Felix: Mixed feelings there, because tie is abused to the core in India.
• Men and women look good in a good tie. But unfortunately tie doesn’t suit our climatic conditions.
• My take is that if you are really well dressed and if you have a very good looking tie to go with it, pls wear a tie. Dont wear a tie just for the heck of wearing it. It looks ugly when its not co-ordinated with your clothes.
• Ganesh Ramakrishnan: out.ties have lost their charm. pity
• Ekta Adani: Ties are out. If you spot a colleague in one, then it is a clear indication that they’ve come in after an interview.
• Jitendra Kumar Nanda: Ties look good and are in
• Praveen Kumar: suffocating and unnecessary
• Murli Ramkrishnan: well I still donno how to tie a tie!
• Krishna Kidao: Ties are out – No more Part of the dress code – unless u are some geek attending an interview
• Vishnupreetam Mahalingam: I go with what joe has said. Ties if not well-coordinated can only help you make the worst impression on people. Moreoever after seeing scores of medical representatives wearing ties just for the heck of it, I think ppl have lost a taste for it.
• Classy and chic, the right tie can definitely add panache but the wearer should know how to mix and match colours and textures appropriately.
• My feelings are definitely mixed
• Puja Adani: ties are not ‘happening’ any more
• Workosaur.com:Murli, if you want to learn how to wear a tie, head over to Workosaur’s Dress for Success section.
• Also, while everyone in here seems to be suggesting that ties are out, we’ve just seen the arrival of India’s first rent-a-tie store called Al’z Creations… Link
• Faisal Farooqui: ties are out. Instead it creates the impression u r a sales executive or a person working as a medical representative and secondly Indians are not comfortable working with it
• Vibhash Prakash Awasthi: Depends on where you work..But I feel it should be a total no no…who wants to wear a tie in india where weather is most of the time hot.
• Hitesh Mehta:completely agree with Joe!
• Tarun D Vijay: I think a lot of people do not know what tie to wear on what cloths and thats disappointing. I could say YES to all Corporate Sales Folks. It shows class & charisma. And today a lot of guys substitute a blazer for a tie. If tie isn’t comfortable in India, is blazer is?
• Joe Felix: @Faisal : Whats so bad about being perceived as a sales executive boss?. Others ,including you get to cook food at home and take that hot secy out on a date, just because that poor chap is sweating it out and raking in moolah for the company. Tell me that tie is being abused in India. Pls avoid jingoistic statements in a public forum like this.
• Ekta Adani: I guess Ranbir Kapoor will bring the tie back in vogue with his role as Rocket Singh – Salesman of the Year. And also sales will become the most adorable profession.
• Michael Bala: Out!
• Ashish Jain: Agree that it depends on the workplace – Developer in a tie might abuse it. Though if organization’s core sales force does nt don it then its like nation’s Armed forces not in uniform.
• Fincy Felix: Unncessary accessory! But for once I agree with Joe . If co-ordinated well it looks classy; if not crass…
• Workosaur.com: For all of you who need some help matching your tie with your shirt and suit, check this link.

Attached below is the Theatrical Teaser for Yashraj Films’ soon-to-be-released film Rocket Singh – Salesman of the Year. Two thoughts on the movie:

1. Dubbing the IIT/IIM/AIIMS junta is a good marketing ploy to pull in the masses who haven’t had the good fortune to qualify for a seat at any of these premium institutes.
2. I sincerely hope that the movie will change the way people perceive the sales profession.

Here are the comments from participants to the ‘Startup v Established Organization’ debate on our Facebook page. To participate, click here.

• Ekta Adani: I would say an established organization is a good starting point for someone’s career.
• Avnish Anand: People who haven’t worked in start-ups are in no position to answer this. Its like a asking a lifelong vegetarian to pick between veggies and meat.
• Tarun D Vijay: I agree with Avnish on this. I have only been working for start-ups so long and I’m sure my next move would be established organizations. But in today’s age a lot of people want to be entrepreneur’s. Tis nor tat.
• Abhishek Shah: startup anytime
• Faisal Farooqui: Start-up are good place to start your career as u can learned many things and unlike an established organization your CEO is always accessible in a start-up
• Ekta Adani: Avnish, one doesn’t have to live in a dictatorship to judge whether they’d prefer it over a democracy? So while a person who has worked in a start-up and an established organization may be in a better position to answer this question, your argument takes it too far. Each person can have a preference just like you would have an opinion on this even before you start working.
• Avinash Bichali: I’ve always loved to work in start-ups.My last 3 assignments have been start-ups and the learning I’ve had from them is enormous. However, in tough times like this, one would like to be in a stable established organisation. The shift from being a big fish in a small pond to a small fish in a big pond is really going to be tough. My next move.. an established org
• Murli Ramkrishnan: Starup of-course!! in an established organization you are given a small module to accomplish which management will say it is a challenging task!! although not!! startup you and your team are the decision maker….innovation always comes from a startup…passion drives it!!
• Sachin Uppal: Having worked in Multi Nationals, Large corporates and Startups… my clear preference is a Startup. Reasons:
• 1) Learning and growth – Diverse business learning and Rapid growth.
• 2) Sense of ownership – You get to feel like owning a business and what it takes to run your own one day.
• 3) Sense of achievement – Impact of your contribution can be directly seen and any success and failure brings that sense of achievement and/or learning.
• 4) Creativity and Innovation – You can get creative and come up with new ideas and test them out and innovation dwells in startups and breeds out as benchmarks for others.
• Srijata Bhatnagar: I too vote for start up – for a fresher, and iif the individual is not keen to start his/her own company in the future, going for a established organisation after a couple of years of experience is smarter!
• Murli Ramkrishnan: @sachin +1
• Puja Adani: I’ve been working in an established firm for the past 5 years and the experience has been top-class. Being a top brand, my organization attracts the best people and you get to learn that much more from them. So my vote goes to an established company. That’s where one should learn the ropes of their trade.
• Basant Nair: In established one you get to live according to the systems already in place, In start ups you create or you are part of the team creating systems and processes..You are like a partner of the venture…
• I wud prefer to join a start up if it is one with clear goals and under visionary promoters.
• Monica Pillai: Definitely a start-up for me! The heady pace of work, the chance to build robust systems from the ground-up, putting together your own team, make some real changes that have an evident positive effect on business and people across the organization, giving your creativity free rein, variety of work, being able to look back at good work done after a few years…
• Murli Ramkrishnan:everyday is a surprise in startup, even a small achievement is appreciated loud….any top tycoon today say Narayana Murthy have gone thru startup phase….and thats life…..I will suggest all to read once “Stay Hungry …stay foolish” .
• Sandeep Laxman: Both established companies and start-ups have their pluses and minuses. While in established companies the role is better defined, they also happen to be more process oriented which means there aren’t too many learning opportunities. Start ups on the other hand offer lots of learning opportunities which also means extended hours of work.
• Ajith Kumar: i would prefer a start-up …
• Kaustubh Mishra:Have worked in a small company, indian mnc and a foreign mnc bank… and started my own company in 2007. i am loving every experience, every high, every low, every moment is worth it.
• But yet, i feel start ups are not for every one. Yes, it gives you more experience, etc but there is a certain amount of passion and energy that is required for being in a start up. About 70% fold up in the 1st year itself and until the people in a start up have the energy and persistence, it is difficult. Every day you have to tell yourself – don’t quit, and get ready to live another day.
• Risk taking is another thing one has to consider. One has to realise that you can’t back out just like that, you just accelerate till you achieve escape velocity and then your start up is a hit. there is no automatic debit in your account on the 1st of every month. Go through the annals of history and you will realise those who took the maximum risk, reaped the maximum rewards.
• There are certain good things in a established company as well, the experience sharing, the range of people you meet, the stability and more. For some it works well.
• Both of them need different set of expertise and deciding between start up and estanblished organization, really depends on what your competencies are.
• As for me, a start up is a fun ride. You get to do what you love and get paid for it. I love adventure and i started a company that conducts adventure tours. yes, if you have the energy, persistence and the passion, i strongly recommend you go for it. It’s worth every risk you take, every sacrifice you make, it is worth it. And once you start – just don’t quit!!!
• p.s. – those who have shown interest in the start up option can sure contact me, i have some very good opportunities for you
• Manoj Samuel: I have worked for both start ups and multinationals…and i currently hold job offers with 2 companies – a fortune 100 company and secondly, a startup company that is fastest growing..my preference after 8 yrs of work would be to work for a startup company.., especially this one as it very good and progressive!
• Joe Felix: Small , professionally managed organisations with intelligent and sensible leadership is the place to be in. But i think one should start his/her career in a relatively large organisation. It requires a lot of maturity to tackle the org climate of a start-up and that can be acquired only through some solid grilling/ getting screwed by the arrogant boss, in a large organisation.
• When it comes to start-ups , its very critical to be in a set-up thats managed by smart, intelligent and sensible folks and not with some random start-up. Personally , i’d rate naukri.com days as my best start-up experience basically because the top two guys were super intelligent and extremely sensible. Clickjobs wasn’t bad because i had smart colleagues from whom i’ve learnt a lot!
• Beyond that, its super boring to be in a start-up where the dudes lack mojo.
• so, start is neat..only if its “smart, intelligent and sensible” and people should start their career in a medium sized or large organisation.
• My manicured middle finger to all those wannabe FRESH MBAs who land up in start-ups with no bloody experience[:d]
• Anuj Agarwal:I have served two startups till now after orgs like GE, HP , UBS. One IT consulting startup for public sector org and another business centric startup. I find env. more challenging and innovative. Not only my learning curve has a steep climb but also I have plenty of room to flex my muscles and try new stuff.
• Fincy Felix: Definitely with an established organisation. Ofcourse I might sound little outdated & reluctant to take risks, but according to me a career should not be a roller coaster ride either. It should provide a certain sense of security and stability for you at the same time being volatile and challenging. Just because in an established organisation, the process are set up and the roles are defined, it does not essentially mean that it does not offer opportunity to learn and grow.
• Majority of them who are favourable for Start-ups are considering only those ideal sort of set ups which are headed by true visionaries. Unfortunately those start- ups are rare to find with every other person being a venture capitalist and all sorts of non feasible ideas end up as new start-up venture. They not only perish within no time but also can cause a lasting damage to your career. Well, those who are fortunate enough to be part of those start-ups of visionaries with zest and persistence, enjoy the opportunity….

The financial system nearly collapsed because smart guys had started working on Wall Street.

Still wondering why? Read the argument presented here and share your thoughts on this article on our Facebook page.

Link via Sarin Suares.

There was a heated discussion on this issue over on our Facebook page. To participate in this discussion, head over here.

• Ekta Adani:Yes, they do!
• Vasantha Krishnamurthy: This is too tempting !!! YES
• Puja Adani: Women are more flexible and find it easier to multitask. Men are usually left-brain oriented. That often makes then better at solving abstract equations and problems.
• Tarun D Vijay: I always love to have a woman on top of me.. Lolz. – Gerard Butler, The Ugly Truth
• Murli Ramkrishnan: hahaha ask me!! 70% of staff are women in my company
• Workosaur.com: So Murli, where do you stand on this?
• Krishna Kidao: They Might / Might not too…but one thing for sure…It does increase the performance quotient among their male counterparts .
• Srijata Bhatnagar:Yep i think they do… we have 60% girls in the ESPN’s India Product Mgmt team… may be because they are more organized than men and have a great sixth sense in place! Yep they also help increase their male counter parts productivity
• Murli Ramkrishnan: I think they are more organized, handle work pressure efficiently…only thing is they fit for 9 to 6 job…but that doesn’t really matter as far as work is done!!
• Ekta Adani:@Murli, most men who stay back after 6 end up chatting or playing games online. Rarely do they do work. Also, working late doesn;t exactly set a good work culture precedent. Over a period of time it can adversely affect an employee’s productivity. So that shouldn’t be counted against women.
• Avinash Bichali: Certainly not. I have never had a women boss, but I’ve had women managers in my team and my experience has not been gr8. I guess women as individuals perform but not as managers.
• Ankita Gaba: Why ask a question most already know the answer of
• Joe Felix: I think women are more disciplined at work . They also make good managers, when it comes to “Corporate sales” , Ops etc..
• I also notice that there is a lotta women in ‘marketing” domain and am yet to come across someone who is extremely impressive. I’ve met quite a decent number of very smart marketing chaps at senior levels
• My experience is that women at mid level take this “manager” tag very seriously and start bossing around, the moment they get a team. I found men to be relatively composed here…. See More
• Most of the women known to me have claimed that “women bosses are bitches” [:d]
• Now, My take is that… Intelligent folks make smart managers, irrespective of the fact that its a she or he.
• Aman Jain: Avinash, you have been lucky if you haven’t had women bosses. I have had 3 and the least said the better.
• Workosaur.com: So far it seems like the answer is a resounding yes! Does anyone dare to disagree ?
• Before you do, the consensus here has been backed up be research.
• Why then does the Glass Ceiling still exist?
• Aman Jain: you can do all the research you want and give me all the reasons under the sky but proof of the pudding lies in eating and the pudding was too salty.
• Gargi Bhowmick: Sure !!!! Any day!!!
• Jitendra Kumar Nanda: Yes..! They do. Whereas men are far ahead than women. Mostly women,they follow existing process where as men create new process in their organisations. One thing i notice – An org listen what a women manager tell to management.
• Murli Ramkrishnan: Men Vs. Women its a global debate….concluding…MEN rule the world…women get reservation to do so hehe!!
• Joe Felix: Murli…Sonia almost rules India, by the way
• Smita Thorat: Murli…I dont agree that women are fit only for 9 to 6 job….as this doesnt exist in our case …
• Ekta Adani: Men’s command-and-control style versus women’s team-building or consensus approach… As a manager, the latter works better.
• Murli Ramkrishnan: and the argument continues……well @Ekta women are not into team building ….they are more into gossip building. Im sure most of you will agree on that…
• Joe Felix: Empathy is the most important leadership personality trait …Ekta
• I think women in general, have a problem here
• Moreover, its a wrong perception that men follow autocratic style of management and women in leadership role are mostly collaborative in their approach. Just try and do an analysis on the leadership style of senior chaps in your org. You’ll get the answer
• Ekta Adani: Well, men often think if they ask other people for advice, they’ll be perceived as unsure or as a leader who doesn’t have answers. On the other hand, women are more willing to solicit other people’s opinions.
• Krishna Kidao: Women in Marketing domain especially in corporate sales / Media sales – Does an extremely good job…They are too good in convincing clients and it works 90% of the time…!@Ekta…ur judgement is wrong..most of the men do productive work and do make strong & bold decisions only after 6…and thts excatly when a women picks up her handbag and walks out of the office….
• Mehul Shah: Yes agreed they do..
• Joe Felix: We do have super stars in Chanda Kochar, Indra Nooyi ,Kiran mazumbar, carol of Yahoo etc…
• On the otherside we have the Arun sarins , Mittals , ambanis etc…
• So, Its kinda balanced..
• I wanna kick off with a new angle saying , its increasingly becoming easier for women to climb the career ladder , when compared to their male collagues… :p
• Srijata Bhatnagar: Why productive work can happen only after 6 PM… why cant it happen within the stipulated working hours? This argument also opens another facet of this debate… “Work life balance”…
• also why women leave office on time is because they have to look after the family back home… unlike their male counter parts who can happily come home at 9pm have dinner and straight crash into the bed without bothering about anything!
• Mehul Shah: Man can build TAJ MAHAL, but the reason can be woman… so ever one know the answer of this…..!!!!!!
• Joe Felix: Now…I disagree with this home gyan Srijata.. You have poor married men who manage kitchen at home ..too [:p]
• Srijata Bhatnagar: @ Joe – agree there are ‘Poor men’ who do manage kitchen at home… however do they also work beyond working hours like their peers, is the question? I have MALE colleagues who needs to manage kitchen at home but they generally leave office before i do!
• Tarun D Vijay: Just coz there are nine women, they cannot deliver a baby in one month. A large cut which requires a small surgical or clinical process cannot be managed with Band-Aids.
• Are you in the box or out of it?
• Srijata Bhatnagar: @ Tarun – I am very much here… pardon me not getting your point though… pls clarify…
• Tarun D Vijay: @Srijata: Besides the question of “Do women make better managers,” I would like to see a question answered “Do women make for a more effective manager.” I see the question more of a popularity contest. But does male employees respect women as the final decision maker and yield appropriately to this authority without negotiation? After all, service stays popularity fades!
• Srijata Bhatnagar: Well Tarun, i think that totally depends on the manager and the team she is handling and their temperament… my personal experience has been 50:50 with female bosses … if Chanda Kochar, Indra Nooyi ,Kiran mazumdar Shaw are respected then i think there is some substance to it!
• Vishnupreetam Mahalingam: I do agree that woman manage work better since they multitask better. But if you’d ask me if it’s good to work under a woman, I’d definitely say NO! I’ve experienced that twice and calling it horrible wouldn’t be anywhere close to what I had to endure.
• Joe Felix: Thats a case study#1 for my earlier statement that majority of the girls/ladies/women feel that their women bosses are bitches :d
• Sindhu Girisan: BIG YES !!!!
• Joe Felix: Small “no”
• Tarun D Vijay: Sindhu are you agreeing to the comments or the question. I’m lost big time after reading it immediately after Joe’s comment
• Vishnupreetam Mahalingam: I know my personal experience makes me hate women managers but I cannot let that cloud my vision. I’m not saying women are THE best managers, but I would definitely say they’re getting better. They tend to empathize better than men (so what if they cannot see eye-to-eye with the women in their team), they still tend to pretend better that they care
• But if you asked me the truth, I’d certainly say that I’d rather work under a man than a woman
• Tarun D Vijay: On serious note, I think Women managers tend to have more of a desire to build than a desire to win. Women are more willing to explore compromise and to solicit other people’s opinions. By contrast, men often think if they ask other people for advice, they’ll be perceived as unsure or as a leader who doesn’t have answers.
• Workosaur.com: Just a quick recap: opinion is roughly 72% in favour of women.
• Anandhi Balakrishnan: hey pals why these gender based women, men – its just the individual who counts, its the environment and exposure which they have fostered plays the pivotal role in any degree of work
• Shakthi Jayaraj: Women expect perfection and are definitely more demanding at work. This makes working under them stressful.
• Also women are yet to master the art of delegation.
• I would say while they are extremely good performers individually, as managers they take a back seat to men.
• Durgesh Upadhyay: its not a question of being man or women to be a good manager.if one can control the diversion of focus towards other areas even men would be better managers .though women utilise less heart than men in working and they can better cntrol their emotions and utilise brains..
• Kshitij Jain:As an Human Resource student..I think there is no scientific study which show any correlation between productivity and the gender..while men loose there minds when they meet any beautiful women…due to there innate sexual instinct..on the other side it cant be proved that women are better managers…The aptitude,attitude depends on individual.not on any gender….These stupid studies are propagated by some nerds from Harvard business school stupid scientist…its very easy to prove what we want that we study in basic research methods…the outcome depend upon the quality of sample selected…so as a matter of fact i can prove whatever i want to if i am allowed to choose the correct sample
• Ganesh Ramakrishnan: women inherit a lot of talent with regard to multitasking, they can manage a lot of things . unfortunately they arent suited to build teams and achieve or generate a happy atmosphere , which is the requirement of the day- My answer is NO.
• all generalisations are false including the one am making
• Joe Felix: I think the objective of this discussion is to bring out perceptions and not politically correct opinion.
• I completely understand the risk of being perceived as an MCP if a guy makes a statement that “women suck bigtime in leadership roles” and vice versa. But at the end of the day, we do have strong perceptions which are derived out of our own experience in career.
• So it’ll be great if all of us become a bit honest and air our perceptions …without any inhibitions.
• My understanding is that women in general take a lotta time to get matured as a leader, especially on the empathy part.
• Vks Choudary Kutta: I would like to change the statement- WOMEN MAKE BETTER LINE MANAGERS- Their TIME DISCIPLINE & QUALITY CONSCIOUSNESS makes them uniquely successful LINE MANAGERS. However with regards to Top Executive positions with demand for out of box thinking, I am not aware whether there is any distinction between the suitability of man or woman.
• Amee Merchant: Yes they do!

Google Wave is ‘Email Refreshed.’ The entire purpose of Email when it came into existence was to be a more effective medium than ’snail’ mail. As a result, Email wasn’t built to be able to include videos within the message or to have an embedded Monopoly board that would allow you to play the game with your friends via Email. No one back then thought that you would be able to do such things over the Internet and consequently the way Email is right now, such features can not be added. So Google has built a whole new tool called Wave that allows rich communication and collaboration and that could potentially phase out Email.

Wave also tackles a lot of small problems that currently exist with E-mail and Instant Messaging. For example, when there is a long exchange of mails amongst a large group and someone important gets included at a later stage – then he or she may find the context missing. Also, some may reply to an older email in which case the new people on the list may get left out again. With Google Wave that would not happen. It introduces a playback button which takes you through the entire exchange of messages sequentially like in a video.

Apart from several such improvements, Google Wave also allows you to collaborate with friends and colleagues. So it gives you the ability to collaborate on a presentation or solve a sudoku puzzle along with a friend or play chess against someone without needing any attachments.

While all of this makes it sound like a revolutionary concept, the truth is that the smaller improvements come at the expense of a lot of complexity and requires a user to learn a whole new way to communicate. Despite my savviness with technology, I found the tool extremely painful to understand and use. Also, while the collaboration ability is actually path-breaking – one may want to use it either to work on documents with colleagues or to play games with friends. And for that we already have document collaboration tools like Google Docs and if one wants to play games with friends you would rather go to Orkut or Facebook. The whole point is, why would anyone want to collaborate on a document or play a game inside an email when there are better ways of doing it on other applications such as social networks?

Verdict: Google Wave will get an extended run because it’s from the Google stable but in its current avatar it won’t see too much success. Google is probably desperate to win an audience that is fast moving towards Facebook for all its communication needs. But then Wave is definitely not the answer.

=
This review was written for the first edition (November 2009) of the newly launched Times Group magazine called Top of Mind that is focused on celebrating marketing excellence. (Scanned copy)

Advantage #1: Be invisible. Unlike other job sites, your HR Manager would never know you’re using Workosaur.
Before you tell us that other sites allow you to hide your profile from your HR Manager, hear us out. Almost every company using popular job sites to access resumes, use a third-party recruiter login to check who’s looking out. Naturally, the only person who loses out in the process is you. Your privacy gets violated and there’s nothing you can do about it. And no, we don’t allow that on our site.

Advantage #2: We did not sell our soul to the devil and we do not sell your CV to anyone.
Job sites make money by selling their resume database to Tom, Dick & Harry – and not necessarily to people who are potential employers.

Advantage #3: Workosaur is India’s only exclusive site for 7-figure jobs for 7-figure professionals.
A few cheap imitiations are sure to crop up. But you’re smart enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.

For more, check this space.

Here’s how people reacted to this question on our Facebook page. To participate in this discussion, head over here.

• Ekta Adani: This question needs to be met with a resounding ‘no’ from everyone in corporate India.
• Praveen Kumar: I strongly believe that they work towards an organizations profit and should get their fair deal. While austerity in public figures is expected as they live on public money, extending the same on private institutions is downright ridiculous.
• Kaustubh Mishra: Definitely NO, why should a person who deserves the BEST should compromise, when a lot of Political Jerks enjoy the Perks Freely..
• Vibhash Prakash Awasthi: Agree with Kaustubh!!!
• Puja Adani: There’s an article on Rediff via Business Standard on this matter. Check this link
• Ashish Srivastava: I am actually divided on this question. On one hand, I agree that salary of the CEO and other employees should be controlled by the market dynamics, but on the other hand, I am appalled by the behavior of CEOs like Dick Fuld, John Thain, Rick Wagoner and the likes.Apparently, without checks and balances human beings will go out of control. So … See Morethere has to be a way to justify how much the CEO (and for that matter any executive) makes vs how the company does.That being said, I still maintain that government needs to stay out of private business and should rather introspect why tax payers money is being flushed down the toilet building statues and celebrating birthdays and anniversaries.
• Workosaur: Ashish, the context here is the recent statement by Corporate Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid and trade unions calling for the regulation of CEO salaries in India.
• Avnish Anand: I think a company which seeks a bailout from the govt loses the right to operate by market dynamics. A company which runs on its own and keep its stakeholders happy has every right to make its own decisions. Why should trade unions be worried about CEO salaries of companies which don’t even have a trade union. For a long long time we had been paying our CEO’s poorly, so much so that most of the good people left for better paying jobs abroad.The trade unions and the ministry didn’t want to ape America then. Now they want to copy them. Salman Khurshid should shut up and focus on other issues.
• Kaustubh Mishra: @ Avnish – totally agreed.
• Workosaur.com: Hmm, I think this is yet another ‘me too’ debate inspired by the US. In US there is a definite case for this because they have data to prove it.Real wage (Inflation adjusted) for the American worker has been the same since the mid 70s. In the same period Average CEO salaries has gone from being 25 times that of the average production worker to 500 times. (Links below)In India I am fairly certain we do not have this data.

  A major reasons why this happens
  1. Stock markets review a CEOs performance quarterly. It is in the CEOs benefit to keep stock prices up. CEOs are not sure of their future for long and negotiate large salaries and severance packages
  2. Stock options are a major source of CEO remuneration, this becomes a very personal motive for the CEO to keep markets happy and prices high

  The result, CEO try and control costs as much as possible, some of the favorite levers are controlling salaries, automation and outsourcing. Control cost of human capital.

  Having said this, I still think rather than controlling costs CEO remuneration must be made performance focused & transparent. The stock holders and other employees should know why a CEO is getting a hike or why is he/she is getting a cut.

  Link 1 | Link 2

• Sandeep Laxman: Should salaries of CEOs be controlled? – Definitely. But to what extent is the question. We often tend to misinterpret a fast growing company as a successful company and the shareholders are happy to pay the CEO his multi-million dollar salary. However a quick and continuous increase in size may not be akin to the performance of the CEO. Take Subhiksha and Suzlon as examples. Though they grew extremely fast in the past few years, they are currently struggling to pay their debt.I think it is important that something more than money drive the CEO of a company. Take a look at Warren Buffett – one of the world’s richest people. He takes home a salary of just $100,000 which is even lesser than what most MBA pass outs get. Steve Jobs is another such example.Kindly note, that I am not emphasizing that good CEOs should not get rewarded but just stating that it is more beneficial to ensure that its not just money that drives him.
• Krishna Prasad: The shareholders have the right to decide…to align it with performance…no outsider can comment or attempt to regulate this.
• Ganesh Ramakrishnan: Not necessarily. how much money will be saved and where will this money go to… this is the next question / problem
• Workosaur.com: Experts over at ‘India Knowledge@Wharton’ had this to say – Executive compensation and risk-taking are closely tied. An asymmetric risk-reward structure and short-term incentives incite people to take risky decisions and cash out before bad consequences are played out.