>> It's critical to compensate non-profit employees near the market rate otherwise you end up with sub-par performers
I hear this all the time for not-for-profits and government roles, it sounds good but just doesn't hold up. The leaders in these roles are not measured or held to the same metrics as private companies, they're not competing for the same jobs and they're not the same pool of candidates. The results prove this out: the metrics and tenure of "high paid" bureaucrats are no better than lower paid leaders at the orgs. The "we have to pay the same high comp to get the same high quality leaders" fallacy is misleading.
I think it holds true for competitive public positions in places where they are trying to get rid of corruption. It raises the cost of bribing people in power, and makes it much more attractive to get into politics for the right reasons.
The best example is probably Singapore, which is surrounded by corrupt neighbors, and deeply involved in industries that thrive on corruption (shipping), but is notoriously a place where officials follow the rules.
Virtually all of the underpaid executive bureaucrats in the US are already rich or will be once they cycle out. They are underpaid for a few years and then are made whole. It would be better to just pay them properly in the first place.
I hear this all the time for not-for-profits and government roles, it sounds good but just doesn't hold up. The leaders in these roles are not measured or held to the same metrics as private companies, they're not competing for the same jobs and they're not the same pool of candidates. The results prove this out: the metrics and tenure of "high paid" bureaucrats are no better than lower paid leaders at the orgs. The "we have to pay the same high comp to get the same high quality leaders" fallacy is misleading.