Should be different for CEOs who risk to start a company than for hired exec talent, often overvalued.
I agree that creative innovators should reap their reward. Regarding who would make the change, here is an interesting fact. In 2008 Goldman Sacks stockholder outraged that the top 3 officers all received over $85million introduced a proposal that stockholders have an advisory role in setting executive compensation. Although the 43% vote did not win, it scared management enough so that next year the CEO only got $25M. I see that in 2015 that “reduction” holds.
http://www1.salary.com/GOLDMAN-SACHS-GROUP-INC-Executive-Salaries.html
I have also spoken to groups and explained that many had more potential influence on this issue than they knew. For example, universities, labor unions, and institutions invest in common stocks. If a specific group wants to change things they should lobby their institutional investor to not invest in or to divest from businesses that overpay their officers or outsource their jobs overseas. Or that they should offer stockholder proposals asking for stockholder advisories on executive compensation so as to lower overpaid salaries and cut management bloat. In one group of about 200 I asked how many owned common stock and about 15% raised their hands. Then I asked how many had attended a college or University or belonged to a labor union to also raise their hands. Then over 2/3rds of hands were raised. We have more power than we realize if we organize to exercise it.