I wouldn't want that job, and I'm not sure I could do it.

Always being on-call, and having to constantly context switch and synthesize questionably-accurate material from reports, to make important decisions.

(And that's not even broaching the political tasks... which are required, because it's the only way to become and remain CEO)

No one is hired to fail, and no one tries to fail.

They're hired to try and succeed, and sometimes it doesn't go that way.

> I wouldn't want that job. However, with the right team I AM sure I could do it.

Remember as a tech lead, if you are heroically writing a lot of code burning the midnight oil, banging out tickets and completing sprints by yourself, you are failing. As a CEO, the more you are doing the more you are failing. This is probably why it is so hard for people like us to he leaders. It is very difficult to delegate and not meddle with things. It is easy to say let go but very hard to actually do so.

Remember that even Steve Jobs delegated all operations and supply chain stuff to tim cook. And that's Steve Jobs! We are not Steve Jobs.

There is no reason why my manager should make more money than me.

There are many jobs that I wouldn't want and that are not paid 6M a year. There are some things that I can do that not everybody can do, and still I am not paid 6M.

You can try reverting it: a CEO earning 6M a year could not necessarily be a firefighter. Yet firefighters are not paid 6M a year. And they actually risk their life.

IMHO, the stronger argument against CEO compensation is that the delta (in company performance) between a great CEO and a midling CEO isn't equal to their compensation.

If a firefighter sucks at their job... someone dies. But (unfortunately, if we're being honest) that's worth less than +/-1% of large company performance.

(Personally, I think public safety, medical non-doctors, and teachers should all be paid a lot better)