I think you're right about the number of people who could effectively do those things. I think you're missing a key skill that a CEO can have that can make them effective if they're lacking in one or two key areas if the company is big enough: delegation.
I'm a generalist and have some leadership skills (nothing like what would be needed to CEO a company of a thousand employees, but I could do a decent job with a dozen or two), and one of the first things I do in team situations is figure out who in the group is good at things I am weakest in and whether or not I can trust their judgement/work ethic/etc. For example, if I'm working on/helping to manage a tech project, it's probably not a good use of my time to do get into the technical weeds even though I can do so, because that is something that a good, trustworthy CTO can do for me, and it's easier to find someone with technical acumen whose judgement I trust than to find someone with communication acumen whose judgment I trust.
Team and bench-building is a key component to managing big companies well, particularly given part of reducing risk is reducing single points of failure, including making the company overly reliant on one person to function.
This is also why somebody's network/reputation is a big deal - it signals what 'bench' they might have available if you choose them as a leader.
So while it's very true few people can solo lead, there are a decent amount of people with ~80% of the skills needed and a network that can cover the 20%, so it's not completely dire.
I think you're right about the number of people who could effectively do those things. I think you're missing a key skill that a CEO can have that can make them effective if they're lacking in one or two key areas if the company is big enough: delegation.
I'm a generalist and have some leadership skills (nothing like what would be needed to CEO a company of a thousand employees, but I could do a decent job with a dozen or two), and one of the first things I do in team situations is figure out who in the group is good at things I am weakest in and whether or not I can trust their judgement/work ethic/etc. For example, if I'm working on/helping to manage a tech project, it's probably not a good use of my time to do get into the technical weeds even though I can do so, because that is something that a good, trustworthy CTO can do for me, and it's easier to find someone with technical acumen whose judgement I trust than to find someone with communication acumen whose judgment I trust.
Team and bench-building is a key component to managing big companies well, particularly given part of reducing risk is reducing single points of failure, including making the company overly reliant on one person to function.
This is also why somebody's network/reputation is a big deal - it signals what 'bench' they might have available if you choose them as a leader.
So while it's very true few people can solo lead, there are a decent amount of people with ~80% of the skills needed and a network that can cover the 20%, so it's not completely dire.