> 2. There's no good objective way to measure C-level performance. > On top of that, the best person for a given CXO job often just so happens to be a golfing

> 2. There's no good objective way to measure C-level performance. > On top of that, the best person for a given CXO job often just so happens to be a golfing buddy and/or have outside business dealings with half the board. > C-level hiring market [isn't] some sort of efficient meritocracy Those 3 things aren't contradictory, they each follow from the other. In absence of an objective way to measure performance, the best thing is "I have experience with this person, and can vouch that they're good." And so it totally makes sense that this sort of network-based hiring is what we see instead of a meritocracy.