• MangoCats@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    The reality is no one person is qualified to “run” a multinational megacorp. Not a single human being knows enough for this level of complexity

    This was true of the United States of America in 1789, but still you need a leader. A leader like Buzz Lightyear, he’s “always sure.” Confidently pursuing a plausible, coherent path has value, even when it’s not the optimal path - difficult to see, the future is, always in motion - direction by committee of “the best people” has its place, but so does decisive leadership.

    • GreenBeard@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      No, what you need is something that can facilitate coordination and communication between many moving parts, inspire confidence in the team, create stability, and sell a vision to generate investment, and those functions do not necessarily all need to be one person. You do not “need” a leader, you want a leader because it’s easier to conceptualize a relationship with a figurehead. Much like the rump English monarchy, the executive is a vestigial appendage and an artifact of of an aristocratic era of patronage. Locking in a coherent direction does not require a “decider”, there are other ways to achieve that. By designing companies to minimize personal liability and accountability, they have also designed themselves out of a useful role.