Why would you? He’s literally the only person ostensibly in charge of the direction of the company. Destroying the company through a security exemption or a bad business deal - both are the leader making a poor decision due directly to his seat of power.

Give sound advice of course, but ultimately it’s the exec’s decision make.

▲

defrost an hour ago | parent [-]

There are many reasons to deny a CEO ... in a good company structure such denials are circled back around to the board for review.

Case in point: Allowing a CEO with no flight training to "have the keys" to the company <rare, expensive, uniquely outfitted, airframe> because they want to take it for a spin.

Sheparding Royalty in Monarchies has been a neccessary, delicate, loaded, and life threatening role for centuries.

Being a C-suite Groom of the Stool isn't a happy job, but somebody has to do it.

▲

kulahan an hour ago | parent [-]

I guess, but it’s his plane in a sense. If he wants to fly it and destroy the company, it’s his call. You just give the advice.

To be clear, I’m referring much more to CEO/owners - maybe more like Zuck than Bezos

	▲	defrost 41 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		No, it isn't - it's an asset owned by the company and shareholders - a CEO is an appointed or elected officer. > To be clear, I’m referring much more to CEO/owners Owners are what you are talking about. CEO / Owners are Owners and can act like owners. That said, even owners need to be herded like cats when they are making bad decisions that impact tens of thousands of people on the basis of hubris and feels. Somebody has to toss them shiny keys until the moment passes and they can make rational choices again.