No, what you need is something that can facilitate coordination and communication between many moving parts, inspire confidence in the team, create stability, and sell a vision to generate investment, and those functions do not necessarily all need to be one person. You do not "need" a leader, you want a leader because it's easier to conceptualize a relationship with a figurehead. Much like the rump English monarchy, the executive is a vestigial appendage and an artifact of of an aristocratic era of patronage. Locking in a coherent direction does not require a "decider", there are other ways to achieve that. By designing companies to minimize personal liability and accountability, they have also designed themselves out of a useful role.

I think that's insane. It's the way you've done things where everything else was punished, because anything else was literally made unthinkable, but that's like the worst means of coordination with too many essential unmitigatable flaws to outline here.

Even systems that explicitly work on those terms on paper need other methods in place in reality to patch over the gaps, and, my biggest organizational pet peeve: so much effort that could be spent on administration adaptation and plain physical tasks gets repurposed to enforcing the hierarchy and a recursive internal arms race about power struggles and responses to enforcement. Those systems are not resilient, efficient, coherent, precise, or particularly durable.