It was fascinating to read Sir Brian Souter’s comments that too many large companies are run by “control freaks”.

By this, (I think) he doesn’t mean that big bosses are too dictatorial, but rather that they are too risk averse, unwilling to make bold investment decisions, and obsessed with the daily movements of the company’s share price.

In other words, they are not entrepreneurs, with ideas ‘bursting out of their heads’. Sir Brian’s point is that the “control freak” approach results in lower growth over the long term, and that we need more of the dynamic entrepreneur types at the helm.

Coming from the long-standing chairman of a FTSE 250 company, these remarks definitely merit further scrutiny, and it’s a shame they were not reported more widely. Having observed at close quarters many company bosses over the years, from daring entrepreneurs to the heads of enormous multinationals, let me offer some observations of my own.

First, the bare statistics on the heads of our biggest businesses seem to suggest Sir Brian has a point. It’s a fact that having an accountancy or financial background is by far the best route to reaching the top in UK business. Just over half of our FTSE 100 CEOs come from that world. It doesn’t matter what kind of business. Whether it’s mining, retail, advertising or fashion, it’s more likely than not that the CEO is from finance.

With all due respect to our colleagues in finance and accounting, it’s unlikely that they are being appointed because they are seen as daring, entrepreneurial risk takers. Quite the contrary. It’s precisely because the finance director of a big company is understood to be the best risk manager in the business that they are attractive to boards as CEOs-in-waiting.

The finance director is also the most likely to have the trust of investors and the City more generally. Finance directors just know the numbers of a large business better than anyone else. And they tend to know where the bodies are buried, most of them at any rate. This gives them enormous power over their peers inside the company.

There is no doubt that the finance-to-CEO trend accelerated after the global crash of 2008, when boards became extremely risk-averse. Consequently – to underline Sir Brian’s point again – capital investments by large corporates in the UK and the rest of the developed world have slumped. Large amounts of cash has accumulated on corporate balance sheets, a potentially destabilising factor in the world economy looking forward. To put it bluntly, we need those companies to start spending again. So far, they are very being very cautious in meeting that demand.

Beyond the ability to manage risk, there is a deeper reason why finance directors are the preferred choice for CEOs. Listed companies are fundamentally financial constructs, no matter what kind of business you are in. Most of the big decisions are about finance: share or bond issues, salaries and bonuses, sales forecasts, capital expenditure, fixed and variable costs. These will make or break your business. It almost doesn’t matter how well you know your trade. If you can’t do the numbers like a finance director, you can’t really do the CEO job.

Very occasionally, a large firm will be lucky enough to find someone who is both brilliant at the trade in question and is also a skilled number cruncher. I can think of only two or three people in the UK who currently fit that bill, but I am sure there must be others!

There is nothing to suggest that this trend towards financially-based, risk-averse CEOs will change. If anything, as business becomes more quantitative rather than less, and the clouds of risk are beginning to gather over the world economy, it will accelerate.

So where does that leave the bold but beleaguered entrepreneur of Sir Brian’s Souter’s ilk?

We can always point out the dazzling exceptions to the prevailing finance-risk trend. Where true entrepreneurs have started tiny businesses and turned them, against all odds, into giants. Just like Sir Brian, in fact.

I would guess that most of those examples can be found in the technology sector, where the ‘genius’ founder has a distinct advantage as the company grows larger. People like Sergey Brin and Larry Page at Google, Elon Musk at Tesla Motors, or Larry Ellison at Oracle have technical knowledge and insights that make them the only choices to run those hugely successful businesses. But even in technology, the private equity investors, who fund the dreams of such brilliant people, make sure they are surrounded on all sides by exactly the kind of number crunchers who dominate elsewhere.

And then there are the mavericks like Sir Richard Branson or the late Steve Jobs. They are impossible to categorise and very, very rare. I don’t think I will be around to see the next Steve Jobs materialise out of nowhere.

Despite all of this, entrepreneurs still have a massive role to play in our economy, especially in the small and medium business sector. In some senses (often overlooked) Britain is still a nation of shopkeepers, with over four million small or micro businesses, most of them employing just a handful of people. These people are genuine risk takers. Most of their enterprises won’t survive to reach their fifth birthday. A smaller number will grow and become the successful brands of tomorrow. As long as that engine continues to turn, UK plc will be replenished and continue to prosper.

Sir Brian’s point is that more of these entrepreneurs should continue running their businesses, even if they reach the dizzying heights of FTSE 100 or 250 status. I’m not so sure. Once you reach a certain point, it becomes a different skill.

But the Stagecoach chairman is right to warn against the dangers of a risk-averse approach to managing our large enterprises. Although I think listed companies need to be run, fundamentally, by number crunchers, there should be a larger role across the board for the true creative thinker, the bold ideas person, the one who can see that the Emperor really does need some new clothes. Every CEO needs one of those, in my experience.

There may be a few businesses in the UK who have such a person, but it’s quite rare. However, the necessity for new, creative thinking at the top of business has been recognised for quite a while. They usually come in the form of the ‘chief innovation officer’, reporting directly to the CEO with a licence to challenge conventional wisdom and the risk-averse behaviour that irritates Sir Brian.

Having more chief innovation officers could be a more natural and fruitful way for the founding entrepreneur to stay within the business and contribute mightily to the next stage of its development, rather than simply riding off into the sunset with a huge pile of cash. Although it’s hard to eliminate the attractions of the latter altogether!