There's a lot of nuance to finding the right leadership as a board.
I absolutely concede that they are useful. Leadership needs to be aware of the whole spectrum of economics, public perception, brand, international standing etc. And a good leader must know the language so as to hear and instruct his/her subordinates. But subordinate that stuff must stay with respect to hard reality.
Evidence is; I taught a bunch of masters business students once. Those who had absorbed too much "financialisation and business" stuff constantly got stuck in what I saw as wishful thinking... that their will alone, or "framing and spinning" could overcome.
I found that very dangerous in digital tech. All the more so in something like medicine or aeronautics.
I'm fairly serious when I say this stuff can be quite psychologically harmful, because as I read deeper into the management stuff I found it "ideological" and inflexible. Much of it still seems rooted in the 1980s and you can almost still hear Thatcher's voice see the shoulder pads.
the same happens for tech founders without a management degree acting as ceo.
Dumping quality gets you more money now, but ruins your brand.
im not quite sure where it says in the rules of capitalism to extract all available value out of a good product until it is no longer good
If the capitalist can bleed an entity dry, then use the profits to spin up and dry another entity, resulting in higher wealth increase over the same time than setting up stable long-lived company, then it's the rational action to do as owner of capital.
When you repackage and dilute ownership enough, you end up with ultimate investor having simple desire of profit from shares they hold in an intermediary, and said intermediary then trying to squeeze those profits out of portfolio of entities. In absence of any other constraint, the rational action is then to increase short-term profit while reducing long-term risk - for example by dropping the involvement before the harvest of sown risks comes by.