[BookmarkSaver]

I think any connection to "royalty" or anointed status is secondary and completely tied to individual executives and their performance (or at least reputation).

What is true is the myth of individual efficacy. That a good CEO will have a successful company, and that a successful company is a sign of a great CEO. The reality is obviously that there are countless factors that affect company performance.

It's not that people think they are special, it's that we are very bad at correctly apportioning responsibility, especially when there is also a power imbalance that extends to determining that apportionment itself. We don't instinctively seek royalty (as in we assume leaders are special as a rule, though obviously in some contexts/positions we do), we seek simplicity (and pinning everything on a single leader is about as simple as it gets).

[skookumchuck]

Yet the historical fortunes of many companies are clearly dependent on their CEOs. See Apple and Microsoft, for example.

It's much like how military battle outcomes are clearly dependent on the decision the general makes, for better or worse.

[BookmarkSaver]

Well, yeah. Obviously they are important.