I agree with your comments about the 'bench', unfortunately, in many companies, the great people you have on the bench get snatched up by competitors, particularly if you are unable to inspire them with a coherent vision. Tim Cook was lured too Apple from Compaq, and though he was only at Compaq for 6 months, I suspect he was not engaged by HPs strategy there (I'm not positive that this was post-merger, but I think it was).
Theoretically, some companies are better able to keep bench warmers happy waiting for their time to shine. Obviously Apple has done a very good job at maintaining their top people. I think Microsoft has done a decent job as well, though loosing Ray Ozzie I think was a tough one.
Of course, not everybody has the capability of being a great CEO either. Particularly of coming in and operating somebody else's company. So some of the people who are sitting on the bench hoping to get called up have unrealistic expectations.
Bartz was far from genius, but nobody else has come up with a brilliant strategy for the troubled Yahoo! either. Apotheker had a strategy in mind, did a VERY poor job of selling it to the public. We'll never know if it was a flawed strategy or not, though it definitely seems so at this point. I think he is partially being made a scapegoat here as well. The board was sold on the vision and gave him the go-ahead, and now that Wall Street is showing its doubts, the board is getting rid of the CEO. The board needs to take some responsibility here, and from the history, it is obvious the HP board has some serious issues.
HP is in a slightly better position that Yahoo!, but they desperately need to find their next growth opportunity.
They thought they'd rule the world with WebOS, but their execution was so flawed that they blew it. I have a touchpad (got the $99 deal), and you'd have to be incompetent to think that device could compete with the iPad at the same price.
So the problem is two-fold. First off, there doesn't seem to be capable internal leadership to pull from, and external expectations are high for a new leader who will drive change similar to the return of Steve Jobs to Apple. But there was nothing to loose at Apple. The company was almost gone if I recall correctly. Either it would completely fail anyway, or it could come back a success. HP doesn't have the luxury of throwing everything out. They are a successful company, but investors want to see new growth in a very competitive market (both hardware and IT services). So the job isn't a simple one.
Do these CEOs earn their huge salaries? I don't think so. I'd like to see more CEOs put their money where their mouth is and take the majority of their salary in options, and I think the board should require that.
Please don't refer to yourself as 'a dumb developer'. I think your question is completely valid, and I wish I could provide a better answer. Hopefully this gets you part way there.