Why would you? He’s literally the only person ostensibly in charge of the direction of the company. Destroying the company through a security exemption or a bad business deal - both are the leader making a poor decision due directly to his seat of power.
Give sound advice of course, but ultimately it’s the exec’s decision make.
No, it isn't - it's an asset owned by the company and shareholders - a CEO is an appointed or elected officer.
> 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.
Whoever needs to to do their job. And you put in security controls (e.g. part A and part B). Also compensate your people well and don’t publicize who they are.
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.
There are many reasons to deny a CEO ... in a good company structure such denials are circled back around to the board for review.
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.