>As for the relation between making the company healthy and profitable and having a successful carreer ; except for founders and a few early employees, it's usually more profitable to look for individual advancement within the company (promotions, raises, etc) rather than to expect the company's growth to benefit you.
That's not the case for people at the top with extremely high salaries tied to stock. Which explains why their salaries are high.
In general you are not refuting my main point and you are bringing edge cases which I agree can exist. But in general the incentives are aligned to hire a CEO best fit for the job and not some one you know.
Dissemination of big three alumni into companies, and their use of the services of their former colleagues is a thing I have witnessed, both from the client side, and from the experience from friends at these firms when they left.
It's simply the way these firms work: associates cultivate long-term business/support relations with executives, and they progress in the firm as these relations become more fruitful. It's honestly unsurprising that departing employees are seen as potential clients, and therefore that the firm helps them land as well as they can.
You don't need board approval for every recruitment of an executive or every decision to hire a big-three contractor, at least not in large enough companies.
That's not the case for people at the top with extremely high salaries tied to stock. Which explains why their salaries are high.
In general you are not refuting my main point and you are bringing edge cases which I agree can exist. But in general the incentives are aligned to hire a CEO best fit for the job and not some one you know.