Two CEOs, one industry, wildly different cheques

🟢 Infosys paid Salil Parekh ₹ 80.6 crore in FY 25 — 752 × its median salary.
🔵 Tata Consultancy Services paid K. Krithivasan ₹ 26.5 crore — 330 × its median.

Yet TCS is almost double Infosys’s size on revenue and head-count. Why does the smaller firm cut the bigger cheque?

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀
1️⃣ RSU windfalls vs. cash commissions — 60 % of Parekh’s take-home was stock that vested in a buoyant market; Krithivasan’s pay is capped as a slice of profit.
2️⃣ Benchmark culture — Infosys pegs pay to NASDAQ peers; Tata Group prizes “leadership by moderation.”
3️⃣ Tenure timing — Parekh is seven years in (boards reload equity mid-tenure); Krithivasan is finishing Year 1.

👀 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀
⏩ Optics of inequality: When one raise beats the average employee’s entire salary, fairness feels abstract.
⏩ “Is it really performance?”: If CEO wealth swings mainly with market tides, is it merit — or amplified beta?
⏩ Engagement risk: Perceived inequity erodes trust, discretionary effort, and retention.

🛠 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲
💡 Radical transparency: Publish the full pay formula, hurdles, and 5-year scenario tables.
💡 Shared upside: Pair every CEO RSU grant with proportional grants deeper into the org.
💡 Ratio guard-rails: Commit to explain any CEO raise that outpaces the median raise.
💡 Profit-sharing pools: When equity windfalls exceed a threshold, trigger company-wide bonuses.
💡 Regular forums: Let the comp-committee chair take employee questions annually — on record.

𝗧𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁:
➡️ Cap the percentage CEO raise to the percentage median raise — unless the board explains the gap in plain English.
➡️ Or keep the upside, but pair every CEO RSU grant with a proportional grant deeper into the workforce.

Which path would actually sharpen long-term value creation and social equity? I’m all ears. 👂👇