I don't think that way of looking at things is fruitful, a CEO may have "presided" over huge growth, way above their compensation, but in practice that growth is most likely down to an amalgam of all the workers (and might have been higher without the CEO, for example).
Each worker gives the same, ultimately, an hour of their precious life each hour they work.
Workers have goals, and they can accomplish those goals while macro goals like 'company success' fail.
The ceo is responsible for those macro goals. Those macro goals are failing, ergo while most works should be receiving increases in comp, the CEO should be seeing a decrease.
Each worker gives the same, ultimately, an hour of their precious life each hour they work.