In reply to nickinscottishmountains:
I do not want to denigrate support roles. Of course there are essential support roles, and in any organization above a certain size you need hierarchies. However, even designing the commercial strategy for the company is at its heart a support role for the actual purpose of the company, in case of VW developing, producing, and then selling cars.
In case of commercial companies I don't even mind the persons providing the strategic guidance earning well, but quite obviously (*) the obscene level of boardroom pay seen in most listed companies today is not due to the added value the directors provide, but because most directors also sit in the boards of other companies and set the director's pay there. Essentially, the tail is wagging the dog.
However, this issue distracts from the discussion at hand, and that is VC pay at universities. IMO running universities as businesses, and the entire business speak and business thought that comes with this concept, is fundamentally wrong. The runaway increase in VC pay is just a sign that the business view has won, and boardroom greed has infected the higher education sector.
At the end, professors and VCs are civil servants (at least at state run universities), and should be paid accordingly. How can running a small section of the public service such as a state university then be better paid than a government minister with an arguably much bigger responsibility?
CB
(*) the proof that pay and performance are nor related lies in the fact that boardroom level failure is not normally punished financially