CEOs get ousted all the time. Yes, most are rich enough that they won’t be ruined financially, but anyway, if you want to live in a society that doesn’t believe anyone should ever be allowed to be rich, just say so. Or, should they be imprisoned? What would sufficient ‘accountability’ look like?
CEOs have reputations, and they do better with their future opportunities when they “turn around” a company or grow it, vs liquidate one. And ‘growing’ includes the situation where the 90% who aren’t laid off share in that success.
But it’s weird to me to imply that executives should be godlike in their ability to predict the future such that downsizing in any form isn’t ever necessary (and that any failure to do so is a sin that needs to be punished). If a ship encounters rough waters and is in danger of not making it to their destination (in this case, ROI), the captain and first mate shouldn’t automatically jump overboard in contrition. (yes, in this metaphor, they are throwing a few of the crew overboard, but I think severance = lifeboats so I’m ok with it). They should do what it takes to preserve the ship. That’s their job. (And neither in the metaphor nor real life is “eliminating most of the crew” something they do, everyone accepts that the crew are valuable, and to be preserved)
I think it’s unrealistic to expect any corporate governance to meet your apparent criteria, that in the event of any RIF the C-suite must all be sacked and their personal wealth set to the median wealth of the rank-and-file at that company.
Nobody is stopping anyone from setting up such a company and having that in contractual agreements with all their executives, though. It would be an interesting experiment.