No they're not. They're massively overpaid relative to value they bring. They generally get these multi-million dollar compensation packages regardless of performance. Presumably this is also because of their power to negotiate which is high because they're more or less in charge of everything.
[1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2094020?seq=1
[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/06/do-ceos...
One small nuance: it can be disproportionately tied to the short term value of the company. One of the moral hazards of this compensation scheme is that it may incentivize an executive to make decisions that inflate the value of the company short term while also de-valuing it long term (when they are no longer part of the company -- presumably after they've extracted that value).
For the vast majority of leaders, their input into the company's overall performance is vanishingly small.
1) Leadership is paid for the value they bring. Primarily through huge stock grants as part of their multi-million dollar compensation packages.
2) Companies always discuss employee compensation, especially raises and bonuses, in terms of the value an employee has relative to their peers.
So, it's no wonder that people believe that their value has something to do with their compensation: it's what they've been told by the companies themselves; it's how the most visible employees (leadership) are compensated.