That's also the case in businesses. No one denies the CEO a security exemption.
30 years in about 8 software companies, Northern Europe. Often startups. Between 4 to 600 people. When they grow large the work often turns boring, so it's time to find something smaller again.
You don't have worked in enough companies then.
Just for the sake of argument, you think anybody would have denied Jobs or Bezos or Musk one?
(Extreme burnout, did not get rich from the pain. It was just pointless destruction.)
Give sound advice of course, but ultimately it’s the exec’s decision make.
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.
To be clear, I’m referring much more to CEO/owners - maybe more like Zuck than Bezos
> 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.
The CEO of vocal cola has no business need to know the secret formula. Giving it to him has no upside only downside, so you don’t.
Semiconductor does this all the time…engineers on team A know only about their process critical gate materials step. Engineers on team B know about their lithography step. They are trained not to disclose and people respect that.
I mean, I don't know if he had a security exemption, or if anyone who clicked on it would have infected us. But he was the weak link, at least in that instance.