I agree and disagree with your point. It&#x27;s incredibly hard to determine how much good a new CEO has done, and how much is inertia. I think that&#x27;s a strong argument against the incredibly high CEO pay in contemporary companies, it dramatically underestimates the importance of the work of the rank and file.<p>That being said, if you ARE going to judge her by contemporary CEO standards, the question is, would anyone else have done better? And of the set of people who could have done better, how many would take an offer to fix yahoo contingent on performance? I think the answer is probably zero.<p>The whole system is rigged, companies feel like they have to pick someone out of a relatively narrow talent pool, and since they are (wrongly) in such demand, they can all command extremely high salaries.