Umm... yes it does as demonstrated by the increase in compensation not only to CEO's but to knowledge workers across many industries?
If a Widget Inc stock shelfer really did a great job in the 1980's and really did a great job in 2012; the effects haven't really changed that much. His value added to the company hasn't dramatically increased. In Contrast, the CEO's value-added (or detracted) has increased substantially.
To draw out a still-shot; that excellent stock shelfer maybe brings the company an additional $25,000 than if they had not had a stock shelfer, which is $5,000 higher than if they had had a poor one. Ergo, it is meet that his compensation should be greater than $20K but less than $25K. A good CEO's competence, decision-making, and work, however, makes the company an additional $800 million, which is $250 million higher than they would have made with a poor one. By the same measure as we applied to the stockman, his compensation should be greater than $550 million and less than $800 million.
Why isn't it fair for the stock shelfer and CEO to both be compensated commiserate with their value added?