EDITORIAL: Scrutiny of executive perks is justified
Over the weekend, social media erupted into a digital courtroom as Namibians debated a long-standing controversy: the lavish perks of executives in public enterprises. The focal point? Luxury vehicles grant-ed to individuals who already take home handsome salaries - sparking the question: if they earn so much, why can’t they buy their own cars?
It’s an old debate dressed in new headlines. On one side stand those who argue that attracting top-tier talent requires sweetening the deal - that executive packages must dazzle to compete with the private sector and retain high-level skills.
On the other side, an increasingly frustrated public sees it differently. To them, the glitter of executive perks is not strategic - it’s symptomatic of a culture of entitlement, waste and detachment from reality. Why, they ask, should executives enjoy chauffeur-driven opulence while the entities they lead crumble under inefficiency and underperformance?
Public enterprises are notorious for their inconsistent service delivery, financial mismanagement, and underwhelming impact. Yet, their executives live large - a contradiction that’s difficult to justify in a country where ordinary workers can’t keep up with living costs.
Supporters of the perks insist that executive roles carry heavy responsibility. If a junior staffer fails, one person loses their job. But if a CEO fails, they argue, an entire organisation can collapse and hundreds of jobs can be affected. Their logic is simple: the higher the risk, the higher the reward.
But this logic collapses when performance is absent. You can’t demand top-dollar pay for bottom-tier results. Incentives must be tied to measurable outcomes, not just titles and corner offices. Accountability cannot be a vague afterthought. If performance is poor, the perks should evaporate - just like they would for any other employee.
It’s an old debate dressed in new headlines. On one side stand those who argue that attracting top-tier talent requires sweetening the deal - that executive packages must dazzle to compete with the private sector and retain high-level skills.
On the other side, an increasingly frustrated public sees it differently. To them, the glitter of executive perks is not strategic - it’s symptomatic of a culture of entitlement, waste and detachment from reality. Why, they ask, should executives enjoy chauffeur-driven opulence while the entities they lead crumble under inefficiency and underperformance?
Public enterprises are notorious for their inconsistent service delivery, financial mismanagement, and underwhelming impact. Yet, their executives live large - a contradiction that’s difficult to justify in a country where ordinary workers can’t keep up with living costs.
Supporters of the perks insist that executive roles carry heavy responsibility. If a junior staffer fails, one person loses their job. But if a CEO fails, they argue, an entire organisation can collapse and hundreds of jobs can be affected. Their logic is simple: the higher the risk, the higher the reward.
But this logic collapses when performance is absent. You can’t demand top-dollar pay for bottom-tier results. Incentives must be tied to measurable outcomes, not just titles and corner offices. Accountability cannot be a vague afterthought. If performance is poor, the perks should evaporate - just like they would for any other employee.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article