The point of my post below on managing director salaries is not whether or not the MD of the Goodman "earns" his money (whatever that might mean in this context) (although a 2-star overall rating, a 1-star efficiency rating by Charity Navigator and a decreasing primary revenue amount might suggest questions might be in order), but rather to indicate that the non-profit theatre seems to have succumbed to the corporate model of scaling salaries according to the closeness to the Board. When you have a Board that is likely drawn from the higher economic classes in Chicago, the amount that they feel is proper compensation for management, given their own experience, will reflect that orientation. Imagine, instead, that the Board was made up of people who worked a regular job for a living -- let's say, grocery store managers -- would they feel that $340,000 was justifiable?
The model of the theatre tribe makes sure that the money is being distributed fairly and equitably, and that those whose work the public overtly comes to see (actors, directors, designers) are paid as much as those whose work is invisible to the audience. While administrative and artistic leadership is important, it is no more important than the actual act of creation.