Society thinks of companies like movies: we want them to have a plot and a cast. But do a bold narrative and celebrity players make as much difference as we think? Or is the story in the executive suite a case of "a tale, Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing" in the despairing words of Macbeth?

One day I would love to conduct an experiment by replacing the entire board of directors of a major corporation with shop dummies and see how well things go. I'm confident most organisations would carry on regardless - and quite a few would unquestionably perform better. Out would go mad strategic initiatives, doomed takeovers, suicidal rebranding exercises and so forth. Responsible leaders on the ground would be able to get on with the job without distractions.

A retailer with which I'm involved appears to be testing this hypothesis by default. Over the recent holidays it shut its headquarters from December 23 to January 4 - almost two weeks. Meanwhile the stores had to open every single day except Christmas day. While the shops must open more days than ever, the centre feels able to take ever more time off. I think this policy must be driven to its ultimate conclusion, and the HQ shut down. An entrepreneur I know did that last year: forced to cut costs drastically, he simply closed the head office and ran the business from his car. And, guess what, he's still going strong.

After all, it is the operators in the field who actually sell to customers and deliver the goods. Too often, troops on active duty hate corporate HQ - they believe it is full of overpaid bureaucrats who spend their time on displacement activity. Unfortunately, these paper-shufflers represent the face of the corporation to many stakeholders. It is impossible to tell how much value they add and if their administrative and strategic functions are as vital as we are always told.

As emotional human beings, we feel a compulsion to personalise most aspects of life. So the media and outsiders view the success of a business through the prism of a boss, a masterful figure who runs everything, comes up with all the good ideas and deserves all the credit.

Yet, especially in the case of large, well-established businesses, retained earnings, goodwill, momentum and market share are far more influential factors than whoever claims to be captain of the ship.

One company I know fired its chief executive two years ago, and has since been run by an ad hoc committee of senior staff. Progress during the period has been spectacular, in spite of having to compete in a tough sector and a patchy track record in the past.

Of course, defined leadership is preferable to a confused structure, but the potential for one man or woman to make that much impact on a corporate outcome is wildly exaggerated. Nevertheless, such a belief suits our prejudice of how management actually works - and it suits the leadership class, as well as the headhunters and pay consultants.

We know the best businesses have talent in depth. It is as if there are always two companies: there is the artificial, external impression with a spotlight on a single hero, and then there is the true picture, where dozens or hundreds of key people do the work that matters.

The finest leaders I have dealt with possess three qualities above all else: skill as a listener, skill as a delegator and skill as a motivator. These traits require a degree of modesty scarce among those ambitious enough to clamber to the top.

Such thrusting figures often possess considerable egos and want to maximise personal glory. By contrast, wise bosses know that progress is rarely achieved through noisy triumphs, like imagined events in fiction, but through unflashy, incremental steps that take time and a team effort. This runs counter to the desire for headlines and simplistic answers and our thirst for personalities. The reality is that a consistent 5 per cent annual growth rate still doubles the size of a company every 14 years and is likely to create a much sounder enterprise than a more frantic display.

lukej@riskcapitalpartners.co.uk The writer is chairman of Channel 4 and runs Risk Capital Partners, a private equity firm