If you have ever served on a board of directors you will get a much better appreciation for exactly what the CEO adds or doesn't add to the company's value. I

If you have ever served on a board of directors you will get a much better appreciation for exactly what the CEO adds or doesn't add to the company's value. I suspect that a CEO has a lot more impact on the board than she has on the company as a whole, and it's this impact that boards are really reacting to when they judge a CEO's performance. Unless someone has been in the position for a very long time, it's difficult to attribute a company's long term success with the actions of its CEO. There are just too many variables. Boards want to hire someone with a resume similar to their own (ie, experienced and wealthy), and by definition that is going to be an expensive pool of prospects regardless of their individual management qualities. In reality there are probably a lot more people with the inherent skills to be successful CEOs than exist in that exclusive pool, but since the boards don't really know what makes a great CEO (or even whether there is any such thing) they fall back on the basic instinct to stick with their own kind. This is one of the contributing factors in the increasing concentration of wealth that we observe in our economy.