Comp doesn't have to be high to be aligned. The reason it is so high is because of the massive risk and uncertainty of replacing a CEO. There are thousands of people at Google who would be perfectly fine CEOs and be willing to do it for small fraction of what Sundar Pichai costs, but how do you find them? Hiring is such an inexact process that there's a large chance that the guy you chose won't be one of those competent people. And a bad CEO at a company the size of Google can cost hundreds of billions of dollars. So this gives a competent CEO leverage to raise his comp to very high levels. When Pichai asks for $200 million, he knows that the board will give it to him because it just makes financial sense. They're not going to risk hundreds of billions of dollars on a potential bad CEO when they can pay their current CEO 0.1% of that to stay. Essentially CEOs are able to hold the board hostage.
This explanation you’ve cooked up is basically just a fan fiction. Any CEO who tried to “hold their board hostage” would be saying goodbye to their job, and likely their career, in short order. Pichai’s salary is $2 million. The rest of his compensation is incentives. Almost all of his compensation comes from incentive packages designed to align his interests with the interests of shareholders.
So he could perform so poorly he gets $0 in incentives, collects his $2,000,000 salary, gets fired, and still make in one year more than the average US household will in the next ~25 years.
Everything I’ve said is 100% factually correct. The bulk of his pay comes from performance incentives (defined by internal, non-share-price-related performance metrics). In the past he’s had a seperate incentive package based on how google stock did benchmarked against the S&P100 index. I don’t know if he still has that, but he’d still be performing well against that metric if he did. Google stock is up about 100% from early 2020. Hope this helps you understand how these incentive packages work a bit better.
