I think that when a company reaches a certain size and stability level, as long as the CEO is competent and understands how to balance external and internal issues, the particular CEO doesn't matter that much. The real power over product direction comes from the PMs, VPs, etc. That's my argument -- Linus isn't uniquely qualified to run the Linux kernel project, since he's barely even involved in the direction of the project.
Business history & Jack Welch disagree with you. Individual project success is incredibly nuanced and individuals - even in 10k+ orgs - can have massive impacts. Trying to pretend that outliers don't massively influence company success is naive, and MBA programs study these individuals because they are the exception and not the rule.
There's a reason we have Madison Square Garden, Rockefeller Center and Carnegie Mellon. It's not hero worship to acknowledge the contributions of individuals - recognizing a great general doesn't diminish the accomplishments of his army.
What do "genius CEOs" have to do with anything? Most successful CEOs were only responsible for a single business. Multiple successes don't change what Gates, Ellison, Knight et el. accomplished because they only did it once. Plenty of instances of people that failed plenty before eventually succeeded elsewhere (Ray Kroc).
Well, if CEOs didn't have that much bearing on the success of businesses, or don't have much bearing on the success of businesses once they reach a certain size, then seeing a wildly successful CEO completely flop at the next company would make sense.
