zlacker

> Replace the word CEO with President, Prime Minister, Branch Manager, Head of Labor Union - and it'll make as much sense.

They all have massive limits on their powers as compared to a CEO. They work with parliaments, etc. They can be vetoed easily.

I'll grant it isn't a perfect analogy. A CEO doesn't have unlimited power granted by god and has to answer to a board and therefore shareholders. But in essence, the idea of having a singular ultimate decision maker/leader rather than having a small group vote on decisions or have the entire company vote makes it a de-facto monarchy.

>>nemo44+(OP)
It's a very bad analogy, because CEO's operate within a charter. CEOs isn't even the top position at all companies, typically it's the chairman of the board... that can literally tell the CEO to can it. In fact almost all CEOs can be vetoed by the board of directors and even at certain times - individual shareholders.

Your analogy is, again, rooted in lack of knowledge(aka ignorance) of corporate structures.

The CEO of my startup right now, where she literally owns 51%, still must go to the board for any impactful decision. And any C level exec can call the board.

LLCs are generally autocratic, but that isn't "any corporation".