They seem pretty similar. A CEO serves at the pleasure of the board of directors and can be removed just as easily as they are appointed. The same is true of the Prime Minister, is it not? They serve at the pleasure of Parliament and can be removed should Parliament become unsatisfied with their performance.You may also wish to look up the separation of powers in a government. Your US centric world view might have caused you to miss some nuance.
Depends upon the company setup, the abilities of the CEO, the amount of shares involved (if you want to look at a lot of tech companies then the owner-founder and often CEO has enough shares to override just about anything). Similarly removal of a prime minister via official channels is a rather rare event (while votes to ask for it are maybe one in a decade affairs the last one to happen was the 1970s, and the one before that being in the 1920s).They seem pretty similar. A CEO serves at the pleasure of the board of directors and can be removed just as easily as they are appointed. The same is true of the Prime Minister, is it not? They serve at the pleasure of Parliament and can be removed should Parliament become unsatisfied with their performance.