Oh, yeah, because those companies have really proven that their leadership is so incredibly valuable.
The problem with evaluating leadership is we almost always talk in terms of impact ("this decision saved/made/lost the company $X million/billion per year") as opposed to performance over replacement ("compared to an average person we could have hired to fulfill this role, how'd you do?"). The nature of a capitalist system is that large piles of money tend to get bigger, and companies are giant piles of money. If you are in a position of power, on average you're going to make the company more money. That doesn't make you exceptionally valuable, as pretty much anyone we could have put in that slot was going to make money.
The problem with evaluating leadership is we almost always talk in terms of impact ("this decision saved/made/lost the company $X million/billion per year") as opposed to performance over replacement ("compared to an average person we could have hired to fulfill this role, how'd you do?"). The nature of a capitalist system is that large piles of money tend to get bigger, and companies are giant piles of money. If you are in a position of power, on average you're going to make the company more money. That doesn't make you exceptionally valuable, as pretty much anyone we could have put in that slot was going to make money.