While being detail-oriented, analytical and trained in systematic problem solving might help in some cases, the bigger benefit is the training/experience in changing levels of abstraction. At the CEO level, you need to be able to quickly and easily change the level of abstraction that you're thinking about. Sometimes you need to be able to think about long-term industry trends, and other times you need to be able to zoom down to a very specific issue and you need to be comfortable with the nuance that issue involves.

I'd argue that being too detail-oriented may be a bad quality for the average CEO. The CEO's job is first and foremost to see the big picture, develop the grand vision and general roadmap and then hire the right people to delegate implementing the details to. There are people who can do both and those are the truly great CEOs. But unless your name is Jobs or Bezos, you probably shouldn't try to do it.

I was with you until the last sentence. Great CEOs may not be found on every street corner, but there are a lot more of them in the world than two.

There is some truth here. In a large organisation, the people running it will not understand the problems they are solving as well as the people under them.

The Head of Sales (US) understands the US market better than the Director of Sales, who understands it better than the CEO. So, the CEO can make an impact by choosing people, understanding their motives, skills and the relationships between them, and giving them a chance to shine.

When a new president is elected, and imposes policies he came up with in opposition without access to treasury data and expert advice, something is wrong. Shame it happens every time. Big company CEOs are trying to make money, not get re-elected, so they should manage not do.

If robots performed to the calibre of hyper-rational beings like Jeff Bezos, then you would be right - robots would make damn good CEOs!

Robot CEOs! What a good idea!

But then who would we give exorbitant compensation to?