But the problem is from point of view of compensation fairness that was the CEO who got paid 10M 2.5% better than the less paid CEO or was he just lucky (great

But the problem is from point of view of compensation fairness that was the CEO who got paid 10M 2.5% better than the less paid CEO or was he just lucky (great personnel, good market, etc). A CEO cannot function without a company. Yes, a bad CEO can wreck a company really fast. I would claim there are no superhuman CEO:s who can outperform a market (there are CEO:s who have disrupted markets, sure but that is an exception and not a rule) by themselves - but, there are CEO:s who can wreck companies with a single misplaced stroke. Are they paid not to screw up? The main problem of high-comp CEO:s IMO is that this view of a lord over his domain diminishes the value of the other personnel in the company. Teamwork and all that. If there are really good statistics then yes, a single person can make a huge difference ala moneyball. But does an average Fortune 500 have such statistics?