Sounds like an unnecessarily complicated explanation for the observation the authors made. There are two competing hypotheses: first, CEOs' CVs and track recor

Sounds like an unnecessarily complicated explanation for the observation the authors made. There are two competing hypotheses: first, CEOs' CVs and track records impact their future success, but a market mechanism ensures they get promoted into jobs in just such a way that their impact is offset by the difficulty of the job. Second, CEOs skills are not measurable and their prior success does not predict their future success. Occam's razor sort of suggests that the latter hypothesis is preferable.