"a exec can make one decision that can save / make a company millions or billions of dollars. In that perspective, a few million dollar salary seems like a bargain."
That's only true if there's nobody else who could perform equally well for a lower price.
Problem is how to assess that. To play safe, boards typically go for 'proven' winners (where 'proven' may mean 'got lucky a few times when a 50:50 or even bad decision won the jackpot due to an earthquake/economic turmoil/...).
Those 'proven' winners typically have inflated egos (it's hard not to think you're brilliant if everything you do turns into gold), and start thinking they are worth more than they are.
In a sense, there's a dissimilar similarity with salaries for sportsmen who play offensive vs ones who play defense. The former score, the later blunder, and that is reflected in their egos and their salaries. Nobody knows who is more decisive in making the team win matches.
And yes, the above is just an opinion. AFAIK, there is no good way to measure whether exec A is better than exec B for job C.
That's only true if there's nobody else who could perform equally well for a lower price.
Problem is how to assess that. To play safe, boards typically go for 'proven' winners (where 'proven' may mean 'got lucky a few times when a 50:50 or even bad decision won the jackpot due to an earthquake/economic turmoil/...).
Those 'proven' winners typically have inflated egos (it's hard not to think you're brilliant if everything you do turns into gold), and start thinking they are worth more than they are.
In a sense, there's a dissimilar similarity with salaries for sportsmen who play offensive vs ones who play defense. The former score, the later blunder, and that is reflected in their egos and their salaries. Nobody knows who is more decisive in making the team win matches.
And yes, the above is just an opinion. AFAIK, there is no good way to measure whether exec A is better than exec B for job C.