True, although if you're getting above $1M/year as a CEO, it's not because "the job is really hard." In fact, the bigger the company, the more layers of managem

True, although if you're getting above $1M/year as a CEO, it's not because "the job is really hard." In fact, the bigger the company, the more layers of management to keep you from any real work. Instead, the board has approved that compensation based on very real business needs: growing the company, acquiring competitors, changing business models, etc. It's actually hard to find a leader who has experience doing that thing and is also the right fit. Hiring the wrong CEO is a quick way to kill the whole company. On the flip side, to the board, a CEO that can drive meaningful growth is worth the risk, even if they have to fire with a golden parachute two years later. I'm not trying to justify pay disparity (in fact I think there should be minimum AND maximum FT salaries when currently there are neither), but that's what's going through the board's mind when they set CEO compensation.