That is, if you make 10,000 people executives and make them make decisions by flipping coins, won't 100 of them be in the top 1% even if success is the result of successive chance outcomes?
Maybe that's why people pick on CEO salaries but stay silent on the shareholder profits from the very same corporations. You can imagine 100 million dollars of oil barrels or real estate, but you can't imagine a 100 million dollars mind.
So you have a company wide vote on major decisions? That's very interesting. How did you vote on buying Motorola or replacing Yelp and other local results with Google Local? What about Google+ being added to everything?
Disclaimer: I have never worked with Neal Mohan and not familiar with his output. But, product decisions are taken collectively and by relying on data. Anything beyond that doesn't fit Google's culture and internally you'd have a bad time to find engineers that wants to work for you. In order to be in the genius status at Google, you have be a true inventor. We're more or less capable people and giving an impression that Google's core business is run by some 500-600 slides is ridiculous.
That's obvious, and that's why Google and other corporations have many highly paid executives. But someone has to make the tough decisions, day after day. You should read his original comment
I can understand why this comes as a shock to some; it may be difficult to accept that another person doing his 9-5 job can bring so much value to a company. I always suspected such value creators exist (Jobs would be one).
So good for him for delivering, and good for Google for acknowledging and compensating accordingly. And good for me too; I'm taking my first steps as an advertiser with Google and I'm really liking what I'm finding so far.