> A more risky job should be compensated more?

Yea, duh.

The more your decisions affect the company, the more you’re compensated.

It’s why C-suite commands the biggest salaries.

It’s another reason why orgs are so low trust.

Risk = variance = you should make less or make more depending on outcome. You want the cake (freedom, more impact) and eat it too (guaranteed higher salary)

You have it all wrong.

People are not equations.

Let’s define risk in this discussion.

Risk is the relative impact your decisions have on the org at large. If you make the wrong choice as the CEO, you can tank the company.

If someone’s job involves risk, and you pay them peanuts, they’ll either go to a job that doesn’t involve that much risk or make decisions that are always maximally safe, regardless of potential upside, usually at the cost of company growth.

You want your staff to feel comfortable taking risks so that the company can grow, because a stagnant company will die. So you pay your positions more when they have more risk.

I never use numbers and exact equations to think about business, economics and politics. You have the wrong guy. You want more money in a predictable way, go incentivize the employees the correct way. In the meantime, workers are also responsible for the layers of “useless” managements