GO's Forum this month addresses a problem that has riled the public because global management seems to have remunerated outrageously. Some of its top losers, but also others, have taken risks so great, as have damaged the world economy.

Despite countless studies and persistent calls from shareholders and investors, the link between a company's performance and the amount it pays its top executive(s) appears uncorrelated in many cases. What is the extent of the problem and what are its causes?

Professor Peter Hahn of the Cass Business School in London, is the most vehement in his outrage, perhaps because he specialises in the banking sector, which has seen more than its fair share of bad behaviour: "Executive compensation has popped out of kilter because long-term incentives are being paid to company leaders, no matter what the results of their companies are. Good compensation plans have to be structured so that they link executive compensation with company results."

Paradoxically, according to professor Dave Larcker of Stanford Graduate School of Business, "The fi nancial press seems to have little infl uence as a watchdog. If you look at the coverage and examine whether negative coverage had any impact on compensation, the answer is usually that it did not. There seems to be an isolation of the board from public outcries or protests."