You would be surprised. I know of Creo people that worked in the call center that bought million dollar homes with their compensation from Creo.

What is Creo?

They made decisions relevant to their work. i.e. it's not that a random employee would go our and acquire a competitor or buy a business jet for themselves (though in theory they could but that theory never got put to a test). So the CEO still made CEO-level decisions and employees made decisions in their area while needing to ask themselves what's best for the company, economically, just like the president should. Trust people to do their job kind of thing really, trust teams to work together etc.

Not everyone is afraid of responsibility simply because it's responsibility.

It's not about being afraid, but about being compensated for.

Why does responsibility require or deserve more compensation? You're stating something as if it was a law of the universe but provide no reasoning.

If so, great, if not, I’ll still take it because otherwise someone else will have it, and they very rarely live up to my standards.

Is ‘responsibility’ really something that deserves outsized compensation compared with, say, actually creating the product being sold? In this context, it doesn’t seem to come worth outsized personal consequences for failure, indeed quite the opposite. I agree there should be some consideration for the additional stress, but not multiple extra figures on the salary.

> for the new insurmountable levels of responsibilities right?

As it turns out, companies that don't concentrate all of the power and decision-making in one person tend to avoid ending up with "insurmountable levels of responsibilities".