Why should the answer be positive? I have worked places where the CEO's contribution was obviously negative. But that didn't matter, because the CEO's goal wasn

Why should the answer be positive? I have worked places where the CEO's contribution was obviously negative. But that didn't matter, because the CEO's goal wasn't to maximize total societal wealth, or even the company's health, but to maximize the CEO's income. So anything that resulted in a stock price bump that lasted through their tenure was plenty. And given that CEO tenures are much shorter than they used to be, it's easier than ever to juke the numbers.