Or at least, that's how CEOs sell themselves. I think that idea makes sense, but only if the company does well. If it doesn't the execs still have the power to grant themselves massive bonuses before the shareholders can react.
It's kind of like the classic 2% fee investment manager, they'll say they are the best at what they do, when of course they almost never beat the market. Still, regardless of how they do, they make bank. I think what really needs to happen is people need to learn to stop trusting people just because they talk smooth and make an optimistic pitch, and start focusing executive salaries on being entirely results based, with only a modest base salary.
If you're competent, you likely hesitate because most cases are truly not clear cut when viewed through a lens of knowledge with a conscious.
It's easy to come off as confident when you're ignorant or know that simply appearing confident has a positive effect. The real key is to be competent and hide your hesitations/in decisions with confidence. The real problem is discerning which a person is: ignorant, manipulative, or a great leader--so confidence isn't a good measure for me. The only good measure is a historical record of good decisions or clear communication from leadership.
A CEO who acts like a true owner would know this and reallocate salaries as needed to keep employees happy and motivated.