Likely the observation could be made still more precise, e.g.,
quantitative, and carefully tested. People who work in
‘organizational behavior’ and/or ‘public administration’ might
like to hear about the observation, do the quantitative
‘modeling’, gather more data, and test the model.

It may be that you have rediscovered something already well
studied in the literature of organizational behavior and
public administration, and I do not know those fields well
enough to say. My knowledge of those fields is just by
‘osmosis’: My wife got her Ph.D. for her research on a
problem in ‘organizational behavior’ of leaders of
organizations; my brother’s Ph.D. is in political science, but
he has taught ‘public administration’ at the graduate school
level.

You have a nice observation.

For more, assuming that good modeling and testing do not
reject the observation, (1) what are the ‘reasons’ for this
CEO behavior and (2) what should CEOs and superstars do?

For (1), a first guess would be ‘CEO ego’.

For (2), setting ego aside, knowing just what to do is not so
easy:

Suppose the CEO’s field of specialization is field X. Suppose
that the value of the company is heavily dependent on the
CEO’s own work in field X, work likely proprietary to the
company. To be interested in the company at all, we have to
assume that this work by the CEO really is likely powerful and
valuable.

So, the CEO tries to hire an “absolute superstar” as SVP of X.
The superstar candidate might ask himself: (1) Generally the
CEO doesn’t need my help in field X. (2) Specifically, for
the CEO’s work in field X crucial to the company, that work is
already done, accepted as powerful and valuable, and key to
the company, and the company does not need superstar
contributions on that work. (3) I need to build my career,
make superstar contributions, become a crucial, valuable, key
player in a company, get stock options, etc., and how am I
going to do these things in this CEO’s company? If I just
pursue various small topics in the CEO’s work in field X, then
I will not be seen as making superstar contributions or as a
key player. If I pursue other work in field X, then I will
have to be talking the company at least into adding to,
necessarily in some sense changing, the focus of the company
where the company has already accepted the work of the CEO as
being the focus. This effort promises to fail and also leave
me not seen as making superstar contributions.

The CEO may say to the superstar candidate: “You have an
excellent background, are clearly a well-trained expert in
field X, also with good practical experience, have shown a lot
of energy and initiative, and have done powerful creative work
in field X. What would you think about making your career
here a concentration on the part of field X we have decided
is the focus of our company?”

Both the CEO and the superstar may conclude that there is not
a good ‘fit’ for the superstar as SVP of X at the CEO’s
company.

Again, knowing what the CEO and superstar should do is not so
easy.