It fires me up too.
If you compare the productivity of this one person against 163 average employees, then no, the salary can't be justified. Whether that's a valid criticism or not, I'll leave that for debate!
Publicly quoted boardroom and upper echelon executive pay awards regrettably don't follow the same rules that everyone else has to. Bonuses seem to be arbitrarily calculated, and self-justification is through continual change, whether beneficial or not. When they are awarding themselves their own pay, it is not their money. It is the shareholders'. That is you and me, either in direct stock ownership or through other vehicles like pensions and mutual funds. Despite remuneration committees, there is still no self-control. Whether the company is doing well or not seems to have little correlation either, with the excuse that the company would be doing even worse if it wasn't for executive X.
Unfortunately I don't have a general solution. The differential between the "elite" few at the top and the rest continues to increase, and shows no sign of abating.
Personally speaking, getting out of the salaried world and working for myself 25 years ago was the best thing I ever did, I was sick of being farmed out as a consultant at six times my own salary, with the disparity excused as "overheads". That way you make the decision of how much to pay yourself, and you have no shareholders to answer to. If you own the company, pay yourself what ever you like. But if you're leaching off the back of investors, you should think very hard before thinking that awarding yourself excessive pay is justified.