> For example, the CEO of a car company may decide whether or not to build a new assembly line, on that decision, the company may lose or earn billions.
This decision is not made entirely by the CEO, because they aren’t the ones gathering and analyzing the data that would help make an informed decision. And if the CEO was the only person to make that decision then that is only because it is afforded to them by their role, not like a software engineer or sales or w.e are not capable of making a similar decision based on relevant information.. so there is no reason why they should be getting 100x or 1000x what others are making just because they get to sign off on other peoples work.
Of course, and the ones who gather and analyze the data tend to be well paid too, for the same reason. But turning data into strategic decisions is an important skill, and one a CEO is expected to have.
> And if the CEO was the only person to make that decision then that is only because it is afforded to them by their role, not like a software engineer or...
So, why don't you apply as CEO instead of as a software engineer if you want the big fat pay? If you can show the board that you are the best suited for the job, they will hire you.
> so there is no reason why they should be getting 100x or 1000x what others are making
Tell that to the shareholders. Do you really think shareholders want an overpaid CEO to eat their dividends if it is not for a good reason? If they are paying that much, it is because they think that a lesser paid CEO will not bring as much value to the company. If you can convince them that it is not the case, they will definitely cut the CEO budget so they can make more money for themselves.
> Of course, and the ones who gather and analyze the data tend to be well paid too, for the same reason. But turning data into strategic decisions is an important skill, and one a CEO is expected to have.
Only the top layer is well paid.
People produce, collect, and analyse data throughout the organisation. As the data passes up through the hierarchy, management bureaucrats present it as their own to the next level up, thus using people's work to justify their own higher salaries.
That goes on for O(log n) levels and ends with the CEO doing the same.
I think most good decisions I've ever seen a CEO make have already been made inofficially at the lower ends of the organisation. Or at least would have, had the lower ends had access to the relevant information.
Of course, the CEO wants to keep the relevant information to themselves, because again, that's how they justify their salary.
> So, why don't you apply as CEO instead of as a software engineer if you want the big fat pay? If you can show the board that you are the best suited for the job, they will hire you.
My experience is that these jobs generally go to the well-connected and politically affluent in the right circles. It has little to do with suitability or skill.
Doesn't the CEO act as the responsible party at the end of the day however? Meaning if his decisions didn't pan out, he's the one who's going to have to answer to them, not others.
I wonder how he'd answer them. Usually when the things are going in wrong direction, the CEO leaves the company voluntarily or not plus sometimes with a good compensation, and moves to another CEO-like role in another company. No answers/compensations are given to the employees by that CEO.
