There is a difference between pay so poor no one is willing to take the job and pay good enough to get top talent. Clearing the first hurdle doesn't say anything about the second.
But the same is true for all the lower ranks. It's one thing to pay enough to get someone to do the job and another to get the best for the role. A believable promise that the employer won't suppress low end wages for the benefit of C-suite compensation can be very attractive, even if the initial offer has exactly the same numbers on it.
A weak CEO with strong people beneath him can still very much succeed, but the best CEO in the world won't help a company with otherwise sub-par employees.
And it's not just hiring: a company where people are not financially punished for sticking to what they are best at can have a huge advantage over a competitor ravaged by the Peter Principle because that's the only way to get a party of the pie.
A weak CEO with strong people beneath him can still very much succeed, but the best CEO in the world won't help a company with otherwise sub-par employees.
And it's not just hiring: a company where people are not financially punished for sticking to what they are best at can have a huge advantage over a competitor ravaged by the Peter Principle because that's the only way to get a party of the pie.