Outrage abounds at the level of some executive compensation even when there is no hint of any wrongdoing. Salaries, bonuses, stock options, deferred payments, elaborate fringe benefits and other prerequisites are seldom clearly stated and summarized to stockholders and other stakeholders.

And this is not limited to businesses; not-for-profits and governmental organizations also have been known to make the headlines in this regard.

There are three fundamental questions about compensation: What is possible? What is necessary? What is fair?

The economic viability of the organization is key to the first question. Without adequate resources in the present and for the future-- no matter what they think is required or just--organizations can't pay out what they don't have.

What is necessary is related to many factors. If the workers are union represented, negotiations will arrive at an answer with or without a strike. Otherwise, top management and boards of directors will determine the compensation packages that will attract and retain the caliber of employees required throughout the organization. Surveys are available and consultants are anxious to assist. General economic conditions and competitive pressures also influence the definition of what is necessary.

Intangible factors likewise play an important role: relative freedom in determining how jobs are done, openness and candor in communications, flexibility of work hours, support of diversity, understanding toward special family circumstances, leaders who serve and lead in short, is this a great place to work or not?

When it comes to what is necessary, the market sets the price.

What is fair is tougher, but people seem to have strong ideas about what they think is clearly unfair.

Consider performance based salaries and or bonuses. No matter what the numbers say, some manager or executive or board will finally judge, Are the good results because of or in spite of this worker or manager and are the poor results because of or in spite of this person?

Think about a large organization with multiple levels of management. Some people argue that the C.E.O. compensation should be a reasonable multiple of the average worker's compensation. Would you agree that the first line supervisor might be entitled to twenty-five or thirty-three or fifty percent more money than the average worker to coach, help and manage five, ten or more such workers? And that supervisor's manager the same spread? And so forth up through the organization's many levels until we reach the C.E.O.?

In a large organization with eight management levels, (does any organization need more?) the C.E.O.'s compensation then would be 6 times the worker average at twenty-five percent increments, 10 times at thirty-three percent, 26 times at fifty-percent. And yet boards of directors arrive at C.E.O. compensation one hundred or even a thousand times the average worker pay and benefits.

Perhaps all would agree that individuals who have made investments of their creativity, time and money and take entrepreneurial risks to form new businesses and employment opportunities for others are entitled to a fair and generous return on those investments in addition to annual compensation.

But is there a real shortage of talented people ready, willing and able to step up to or move into executive positions in established organizations at less money per year than described above?

So, while it may be possible for an organization to afford it and while a market economy (which we want and enjoy for its great benefits to so many) makes it necessary, still, high executive compensation often seems unfair at least to the people in those organizations and the general public.

Of course, those same people don't seem to have any problem at all with even more money being paid to entertainment and sports stars.