I think if Intel was a private company then it would have a better chance of recovery via a collection of focused experiments to overcome their biggest technica

I think if Intel was a private company then it would have a better chance of recovery via a collection of focused experiments to overcome their biggest technical deficiencies (compared to their competitors) or to, e.g., figure out a compelling new product that the market didn't realise it needed, but that doesn't require solving difficult physics problems. But to do this sort of thing you need a dictator at the top who is willing to risk a run of negative-profit quarters to fix the company's underlying rot. If you try to do anything like that as a leader of a public company, then shareholders tend to get angry. I wonder if there's any lesson that could be distilled from the (minority of?) public companies that don't end up settling into a pattern of carefully-managed mediocrity. Is there a unifying theme? I haven't spent enough time thinking about this to even propose an answer other than "cult of personality around the leader" as maybe helping.