« on: February 04, 2008, 02:25:47 PM »
In most corporataions the salaries of executives are set by a group from the corporatons board of directors. Since the board's primary mission is to safeguard teh economic health of the coporation rahter than to make its executives rich, this way of setting executive's salaries is expected to prevent excessively large salaries. But clearly thsi expectation is based on poor reasoning. After all, most members of a corporation's board are themselves executives of some corporation and can expect to benefit from setting generous benchmarks for executives' salaries.
A, (correct answer) in medical malpractice suits, giving physicians not directly involved in a suit a major role in determing the damages due to successful plaintiffs.
E, (my wrong answer) in a business organization, distributing a group bonus among members of a task force on the basis of a confidential evaluation, by each member, of the contribution made by each of the others.
now the members of the task force will speak highly of the others in order to bump up their salaries the same way that the board will hike up salaries to bump up their own. Is this reasonign wrong because unlike the task force teh executives salaries are not tied directly to their actions, because if so than that is weak. Kinda confused, send help quickly.