The 5 Most Highly-Paid CIOs

This is Spelling Policewoman:

"What is going to happen is that the compensation czar will have a dampening affect on the salaries of all people at the CXO level,”

effect, not affect.

They executives make the decision to pay themselves. Well, now, with these money, are all these guys remain happy?

Thanks for catching that, CB. I've corrected it in the post.

$24 million for CIO of a very successful company is still very much over the top. When you consider HP is laying off and cutting the base salaries of the rank and file employees. Seems to me the CXO levels could take a larger reduction in their overall compensation not just base pay so the rest of employees would not have to take such a hard hit on theirs.

Salaries/compensation packages are extremely out of line with the rank and file employees. When a company lays off, does not make a profit or lowers salaries while the management receives bonuses - the government must step in and set guidelines. These compensation packages are responsible for this economic melt down. CIO's have put technical projects in foreign companies. Train the staff you have and pay the wages necessary to keep the technology in your community. Keep America working.

I don't believe there should be a cap on income, especially when the majority of it is based on the performance of the company and the contribution that the individual has made to said success.

These base salaries are high, but supported because its what the industry can bear, I suppose. Just make sure we don't give THEM bail-out money if they run into trouble...

A more valid comparison would be to compare the compensation of CIO's with CFO's etc; Another comparison would be with the chief of Engineering with companies that have high Engineering/scientific content(such as HP) This would tell us if these efforts are being rewarded.

I used to work at an IT Group Function before, and whilst it was probably not as big as those of HP, we were providing services for a number of group companies- totalling over 4000 people- and working on continually improving those services

The job of our CIO was not easy so I could only imagine what the CIOs of public companies go through. Their pay sounds like a lot, but so is their workload.

I am a fan of capitalism, but good grief. I consider myself to be fairly well paid, but it would take me almost 100 years to earn Randall Mott's 2008 bonus. And didn't HP layoff THOUSANDS of workers a few years back?

It's too bad we're not all cut out to be executives, lawyers, doctors, etc. What's the "regular, working class" person supposed to do?

I just posted a blog entry about this article called "Socialism Hits Home As BusinessWeek Asks, Should CIO Pay Be Limited?" I'm really stunned at the shallowness of this piece concerning such a complex matter as executive compensation. My post is here: http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2009/06/socialism_hits.html

Rachel, as Bob Evans pointed out in his Global CIO blog over at InformationWeek, you make no mention of the effort put forth by these top CIOs vs. the other "IT executives at large corporations". No mention of the risks they took, and of the results they produced for their companies.

Isn't it a foundational principle of capitalism that people be rewarded based on risk, effort, and results? It's always been that way so far.

Please tell us that you don't favor the intervention of external (governmental) agents to try to level the compensation of executives whose drive, work ethic, vision, and ultimately results are not levelled? Wouldn't the end result of this be to indeed level the results of these various companies... DOWNWARD?

Thanks for your article. I hope it engenders a frank discussion.

Makes me regret having gone into pharmacy instead of IT :D but what is done is done. You gotta do what you love instead of what makes you money, unless what you love also makes you a boatload of cash!. great blog, thanks for sharing it
new york car insurance

I have a different view (apparently) than most of America concerning this story. Unlike many people who seem to be saying "this is outrageous," I am saying, "good for them!" Mainly, I feel this way because I would someday like to BE one of those names. Realistically, I probably won't get to that level, but that doesn't keep me from trying.

Why do we have to have such class envy that the successful people are viewed as the bad guys? Is there someone out there who WOULDN'T want to make this kind of money? If not, then why are people intent on tearing down those who do?

It's a sad commentary on where our society is headed.

Technology creates more productivity and efficiency. To get big cash, these folks are building systems and fixing processes that are multitudes larger than their pay. Capitalism assures their destruction should they fail to deliver.

What is more impressive, is that these guys just oversee all the work. They may not be able to perform the job, but just oversee what others (reports) do for them.

It is always interesting to hold up those who are definitely nowhere near the average and then allow it to paint a picture that everyone who performs that function is in that category. Most CIOs and heads of IT can only dream of making a fraction of what Mr. Mott makes.

Also, how many of the CIOs in this group are only responsible for the IT function? At least three by their titles alone have other corporate duties.

I am responsible for an IT group of 20 people. Three of my direct reports are within 15% of my salary. I am barely in six figures. I report to the CFO and I am pretty certain that they are making at least 50% more than I am plus perks that I do not have.

As to CIOs just oversee the "work" it depends on your definition of "work". They may not be programming or operating the help desk but their efforts are definitely "work", hours incredibly long, and they are held accountable for more than most can imagine. I would also suspect that the vast majority of CIOs during their careers have performed the "work" that one of the respondents referred to.

I sure would like to know what kind of real on-the-job risk (as opposed to illusory) may be directly attributed to Randall Mott as CIO? That, maybe he might screw up big time, That this could happen is plausible but then to what degree he'd suffer the consequences is dependent upon whether Mr. Mott accepted personal responsibility, does it not? Having only now read on graefcrystal.com of the HERD factor among corporate NEO's I have no problem working this out. In addition to the natural predatory instinct to protect one's territory, just beneath the skin of these super-achieving humans exists a strong desire to protect each other's corporate butt and at almost any cost, even cost-per-share. ( But NEVER at the cost of one's own compensation package). So if a CIO does get fingered as the NEO who screwed up, even losing the company a few cents a share, what might happen next? The ranks will close protectively as this one steeled corporate executive accepts (or more often doesn't really ) responsibility, and then vividly aware that nothing he does matters there any more, graciously, for his comrades, soaks up blame for the whole mess, but like late afternoon's incoming tide, the mess will sooner rather than later spill over-run into other of the corporation's mis-managed areas. With a new job waiting and a multi-million dollar severance package bulging from his breast pocket, our CIF sighs at the bad luck befallen him! As the spouse of a man who as head of his company's international operations, and its most profitable over a dozen years, the result of putting together a skilled dedicated staff, real targeted risk taking (entering China in 1980's, Vietnam in 1993) and a heavy international travel schedule, obviously my husband couldn't be a fully functioning member of his home-office HERD. When the time came, unfairly, that cost him big time!