[seoaeu]

> It doesn't actually strike me as 'reasonable rate' [...] I (and many others) could get the same results for a mere $700k/year.

Surely, you can see the flaw in this logic though? If you set the salary too low, then only unqualified people will apply, and you'll be guaranteed to get bad results. You have to pay a competitive salary if you want even a chance of getting a skilled leader. Worse, it is harder turn around a company that is doing poorly than to cruise along at the helm of a well performing one. Which means that you both want to have higher standards when selecting a CEO of a poorly performing company, and also have to pay a premium to attract qualified candidates at all.

[phonon]

Except she is the one who has been overseeing this slide into irrelevancy for many years now....for whatever reason the Board, instead of replacing her, rewards her.