> a "good" CEO is just one that keeps their hands off the levers of power, doesn't rock the boat or fuck anything up, and quietly lets a good company perform

How can you tell if a company is good? Because trillions of dollars are spent by banks, private equity, hedge funds, and others truing to figure out if a company is "good."

> By that measure, you might as well save yourself the executive compensation and potential for disaster by just not having a CEO at all

Sure, but somebody is still making the decisions the CEO would have otherwise made. Maybe it's a good thing that the power isn't concentrated in one person; I'd be open to that. But you now have to trust that each department head is making good decisions. That's fine if they were already making good decisions, hit it's disastrous if they weren't.

> But you now have to trust that each department head is making good decisions.

There is a lot of evidence that corporate mergers destroy value.

What if... they were disintermediated by markets instead of being one company?

There are tons of reasons why companies exist (the whole Theory of the Firm line of research), but the information asymmetry barriers are constantly coming down.

Nah.

We know what good looks like in financial results and reputation. It's really not that complicated.

The rest of that bullshit isn't about evaluating a working company, it's about gamblers gambling on non-companies before they become real companies.

And in truth it's a paradox. The better a company is (generally correlated to an empowered workforce with a sense of agency and purpose), the harder it is to extract profit for the capitalist class.

Which helps explain the "need" for CEOs to meddle.