See here: https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1db3jy3201d38...
...TL;DR version here: https://eomail1.com/preview?p=d9e18eae-6673-11e9-9307-06b469...
...here's another: https://www.wsj.com/articles/best-paid-ceos-run-some-of-wors...
...and here's another: https://www.epi.org/blog/ceo-pay-still-not-related-to-perfor...
reminder that CEO pay is negatively correlated with company success (https://www.wsj.com/articles/best-paid-ceos-run-some-of-wors...)
That said, if good CEOs actually controlled the direction of the company and were compensated higher to attract talent - I would expect that to override the negative effect for a net positive. Since that's not the case, I think as you suggest that CEOs are "without active influence on success"
that is not a good thing, out of 2 monkeys throwing darts one of them will make money.
if you bet on an event with 50% chance of earning $1 or 0. your bet is worth $0.50
you need the bet to worth $0, and that is only possible by making CEOs financially liable, and that would never happen, nor is realistic, a CEO's decision could cost company billions.
so by this analogy the riskier the CEO's actions the outcome is greater for them.
if the bet pays off, they win big, if it doesn't the shareholders lose.
I wish there was a good enforcement mechanism to tie their pay to performance -- for good AND bad.