That's completely backwards.
What makes stock compensation valuable? Share price.
What causes higher share prices? Profits.
What causes profits? Revenue.
What is revenue? People giving you money.
Why would people give you money? You give them goods or services they need/want/desire.
Ergo, if you want the executives to "give the people what they want," then they should be paid even more heavily with incentive-based compensation. Now, we can quibble about the structure of stock compensation (longer vesting periods, segment-specific benchmarking, etc.), but an executive who makes a flat salary no matter what has absolutely no financial incentive to do ANYTHING good for the customer or for the business at large because he's going to "get his" no matter what.