[kodah]

> This seems like a question that can be answered with data.

Maybe I've worked at all the wrong companies but in my experience any comp that's based on "data" will be gamed until it's meaningless. There is no "data" because reading impact data is often like reading tea leaves.

Frankly, what I think is going unsaid here is that corporate executives make a disparately large amount compared to the people who do and plan the work. While executives can make a great difference, so can a great manager or a great engineer. I wish we'd see executives as just another role, taking on different tasks rather than something substantively more valuable when it's not, especially in large orgs.

[IggleSniggle]

I think most intelligent recognize that it's just a role. The comp really is just a power dynamic where having a bunch of money/power gives you a bunch of leverage to acquire more of it from anybody with less. Organizational, you don't want to hire somebody that could just be taking orders from someone else with more power to be your head.