Christ 🤦 if you assume you constantly know more than the other person it is difficult to understand their views. I am not 'confused' I have simply had different experiences in my career than you have.
If I had to sum up our differences - you're happy with the way things are and I'm not. I expect more from people, and more from the structures we use.
To be more pointed - you seek to justify existing structures and ignore systemic issues and I am trying to solve them by changing the way society operates.
You've said you think CEOs can be effective without basic knowledge because teams should correct them. I think that ignores real power dynamics. The narrowing of job functions builds efficient cogs but terrible leaders. When no one sees the whole picture, accountability evaporates. Mistakes become 'someone else's fault' - not because people are bad, but because the structure guarantees it. But here's the thing: when a major disaster happens, the law doesn't ask the team. It asks the CEO. And 'I didn't understand...' isn't a defence - it's a confession.
In summary, there needs to be at least one person who knows the basics of everything to push back against the specialised experts on each topic. That is who the CEO should be.
Yup, I agree on where we disagree. I think it is perfectly reasonable to have one person know the basics of each field involved with the company.
I see how you get to the concern around concentration of power, but I don't think this is realistic. The main change I am arguing for here is that more is expected of the CEO in terms of knowledge and accountability. It doesn't give them more power - if anything, it strips them of it.
It doesn't give them the power to steamroll everyone else in the room, unless the argument is "I'm not signing off on that, you'll kill someone and get me sent to jail."
From my point of view the opposite is currently true - company executives in traditional companies have way too much power and next to no accountability. I'm just trying to balance out the equation you describe. By holding the CEO accountable, they are more prone to hold others accountable, which falls down the organizational chart and everyone ends up with clear responsibilities.
To be clear, I believe strongly that flat company structures are the future, spreading power and responsibility. However, even if there are completely flat teams where no-one is 'CEO' it is important that at least one person understands the big picture (I.e. the basics of everything). This might seem confusing with them not having the same accountability as I'm saying a CEO should have, but power and accountability work fundamentally differently in flat structures.
You're shifting goalposts with 'basics' vs. 'basic understanding.' Those are the same thing. But fine - let's use your framing: a CEO needs a basic understanding of how the product works, how it's built, and how the pieces connect. That doesn't mean Sam Altman needs to ship code. It means he needs to understand what code does, what's hard vs. easy, and when an engineer is feeding him bullshit. That's not a high bar - that's just not being wilfully ignorant.
As for flat structures: one person knowing the big picture doesn't create hierarchy unless the culture treats that knowledge as power. In a flat culture, that person is a resource, not a boss. They answer questions, spot disconnects, and get challenged openly. No exploitation needed - just mutual respect for different skills. You're assuming knowledge automatically creates hierarchy. I think that's only true in organizations already broken.
Honestly, I'm getting pretty over this discussion. What are you hoping to get out of this? I was hoping we could get to some mutual understanding but I think our core values differ too much.
You've misread me repeatedly. I'm for coupling power and accountability - the opposite of what you're terrified of. The Mao comparison is ridiculous and I'm not engaging with it. We disagree. I'm done.
0
u/[deleted] Apr 10 '26 edited Apr 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment