Whilst even I pause when I read numbers like this, at the end of the day, the remuneration packages at this level isn't so much for what work/effort you did, but rather the outcomes/results you produced. Given most of the remuneration is in the form of long term incentives/equities which vest over time, his role as CEO is in alignment with the interests of shareholders who at the end of the day, are the ones paying for him. If he wasn't producing results in line with what shareholders wanted, particularly the institutional/proxy houses, they'd vote him out or against the remuneration packages pretty quickly. The other flip side is that this equity awards may not even vest for any number of reasons, or if they do, they may end up being worth a lot less than what was initially disclosed due to the way share based payments work and are accounted for... thus introducing some degree of risk for the executive, and alignment of principal/agency.
This is coming from someone who used to work in the field of accounting for/reporting executive compensation. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the reasonableness of the amount, but I acknowledge that comparing CEO remuneration packages which is based on shareholders willing to pay for it and expecting a result vs. an employee who is compensated for their time, is always going to appear excessively imbalanced.
