Payment seems to be a sensitive issue, especially when it comes to income comparisons between top management and ordinary staff workers.

To reduce the income gap, governments of some major Chinese cities have come up with different rules limiting managers' pay.

For instance, the Beijing Municipal Government ruled that incomes of State Owned Enterprises executives should not be more than 12 times higher than those of ordinary workers.

The Shanghai Municipal Government announced last fall that top SOE managers are not allowed to get pay rises unless workers' wages increase.

These are seemingly comforting ideas to help ensure a fair balance in pay scales.

But an article in the Shanghai daily questions whether these mandatory limitations be effective without discouraging capable professionals.

It said what's important shouldn't be how much you or how you pay, but who you pay in the first place.

It quoted studies by Harvard University which shows that the leader effect can account for up to 40 percent of the variance in corporate performance or value. In many cases it is also the largest actionable source of company value.

The article says nothing is more important than knowing how to get really excellent people in the right positions, which will then promote success from the corner office right down to the front lines. This creates the conditions of meaningful work and rich relationships that foster happiness and maximize productivity.

So the problem comes down to how we can quantify a return on investment in these top people.

This helps put the debate into perspective to know that the pay of the CEO of a medium-size company in most countries is a fraction of the potential value added by the right CEO. And people always need good payment as motivation.

The article finally said the key to dealing with the perceptions of unfairness should not be setting a payment limit, but ensuring transparency.