While there is truth in the existence of that competition, it is also a fundamental mistake to believe this market is basically a meritocracy.
C-suite execs have something common with politicians that way. To wit, some of them get to the top by being very good at the things they do and having generally respected talent... but another path is to be good at campaigning.
Leaders are leaders. You can't trust anyone with power if they want power, but you have to give someone power. The contradictory demands make people make weird decisions, because trustworthy people seem infinitely scarce.
Money is a diversion from destructive uses of power, besides being a response to apparent lack of supply.
It's a meritocracy in the sense that boards want to hire executives with prior experience running large companies or large divisions. How many such people are available for hire and didn't run their last company into the ground? It's a tiny number.
On the other hand, I worked for a president who was brought in to run a brand new division, ran it into the ground within a few years, was forced out of the company under rumors of financial improprieties, and was recently announced as CEO of another company. So, who knows? Maybe boards are just stupid.
