If I were in leadership, I'd assume there are edge cases I'm missing and take responsibility accordingly. Id just assume that is my job, as the leader, that is why I am paid, to make important decisions and stop the company from making big mistakes.
This isn’t a critique of your view—just an observation: there's a recurring theme on HN that leadership shouldn't be held responsible when things break down, as if being a CEO is just another job, not a position of accountability.
Where does this come from? Is it a uniquely American or capitalist norm?
I recall ( i dont think incorrectly) 1980s Japanese leadership—tech/auto who took failures so seriously they’d resign or even mention/think of sudoku.
CEO is the top of middle management, but still middle management all the same. The board and owners sit above that position, if you want to picture it as some kind of hierarchy, and are the driving leadership. They call the shots. The CEO has to answer to them.
Perhaps what you are trying to say is that middle management should carry more accountability? But if we were to go down that road, why stop at CEO?
And how high up do you go? The common narrative is that the owners/board are the highest up, but in reality they're working for the customer. The customer is the true leader. It is they who make the decisions and who the owners/board have to answer to.
Or are they really the true leader? The customer will have customers of their own. Everyone works for someone. In reality, there isn't a hierarchy at all. It is approximately cyclical.
dude