The “imperial CEO” has long been extinct on the American business landscape, replaced by independent corporate boards of directors who closely monitor a team-oriented CEO and senior management, provide needed advice and counsel, and, when necessary, give clear direction on what actions should and should not be taken. Right? Well, not exactly.

It's true that most public companies have done away with the imperial CEO, but I've encountered exceptions to that trend in my work with boards and CEOs. And while many of them are gone now, there are still those who rule the company with a command and control style.

Here's what the imperial CEO looks like:

The CEO of one company had all the trappings of imperialism, including an executive assistant who treated him with the attention and comforts of an Egyptian king. At his morning meetings with executives, his assistant not only brought him his usual breakfast, she literally brought the food to his mouth and virtually fed him while he was looking at and talking with the meeting attendees! He made sure he had all the perks, with multiple company-funded residences, company-provided expensive wardrobes, and liberal use of private jets. Still, he was considered an effective leader, who helped grow the business and improve profitability. But his strong-arm tactics turned off senior and middle managers, and his semi-secret side deals demonstrated favoritism and caused infighting. Ultimately, when he fought to change the mandatory retirement age to stay on as CEO, he did not succeed—mainly because his imperial posture had grown too tiresome.

Another CEO with whom I worked did his best to control the board. He hand-picked a number of the directors and kept them at bay by controlling meeting agendas, overwhelming them with masses of information, and providing limited time for boardroom discussion. Strategic decisions were made by the CEO with little input or oversight from the board. This CEO ensured there were no agreed-upon performance objectives or succession plan in place, enabling him to operate with few constraints. Indeed, there was little communication between the CEO and directors, and not surprisingly, there was high turnover on the board. The imperial nature of this chief executive extended to his management style, which amounted to outright bullying. He remained in office for years, growing the company to new heights, but finally, when the organization stumbled with outdated strategies and less than effective execution, a newly stocked board gave him his walking papers.

There are still some who mourn the passing of the imperial CEO. Certainly many of the chief executives who acted and operated more like powerful monarchs than corporate employees subject to the will of the board were extremely effective. Their ability to design and implement strategy and deal with organizational and people issues—albeit often with a strong-arm approach—enabled them to lead their companies to great heights. Many used their power freely and openly, often with bullying tactics to push people hard in carrying out directives. Some exhibited backslapping techniques, sweet talk, and charm, or simply issued unambiguous demands. The common denominator was that the imperial CEO ensured direct reports knew he had the power to enforce his instructions.

The imperial CEO is rightfully gone for the vast majority of public companies, and where truly effective boards of directors exist they are positioned to add value in guiding their companies to meet the challenges ahead.

For the most part, however, those days are over. Today we have a different world, and operating in the imperial mode is next to impossible. In order to motivate direct reports and other executives to put their energies behind implementing a strategic plan, CEOs know they need to encourage a team to participate in developing, fully understanding, and buying into the strategy. Effective CEOs in the current environment focus on team building, while establishing executive accountability to move toward established, agreed-upon goals. They know bullying generally doesn't work. Sure, some of the aforementioned tactics are still in use, but they are much more subtle, and absolute power no longer rests in one individual's hands.

In this enlightened world many large-company CEOs know how to provide effective leadership and motivate people to work together. Their words are telling, as provided by Adam Bryant's “The Corner Office,” and stand in stark contrast to those of the imperial bully:

Richard Anderson of Delta Airlines outlines leadership: “I've learned to be patient and not lose my temper. And the reason that's important is everything you do is an example, and people look at everything you do and take a signal from everything you do. And when you lose your temper, it really squelches debate and sends the wrong signal about how you want your organization to run … You've got to be thankful to the people who get the work done.”

Alan R. Mulally of Ford speaks of being a student of human nature. “You learn from everybody … I've always just wanted to learn everything, to understand anybody that I was around—why they thought what they did, why they did what they did, what worked for them, what didn't work.”

Andrew Cosslett of InterContinental Hotels Group focuses on learning what people in the organization actually do: “In business, the big prizes are found when you can ask a question that challenges the corporate orthodoxy…. there's been a lot of cost and value locked up in things that are deemed to be ‘the way we do things around here.' So you have to talk to people and ask them, ‘Why do you do that?'”

To be sure, the imperial CEO is not completely extinct. If there's one place where imperialism continues, it's in Silicon Valley. While the extremes to which some CEOs display the trappings of power may have waned, the ability to act independently has not. And although teambuilding and other effective management skills may be displayed by a CEO, in a number of companies there is little if any check and balance on the chief executive

In a recent article the New York Times deal professor, Steven Davidoff, outlines how CEOs of Internet-based companies are constrained neither by a board of directors or shareholders. Certainly Facebook is a prime example, where shareholder voting rights give CEO Mark Zuckerberg the ability to basically do as he wishes. Similarly, the vast number of shares owned by the founders of Zynga, LinkedIn, and Groupon give them  great power.

Where founders maintain a controlling interest in voting shares, directors can be selected, retained, or dismissed, at the whim of the founder and chief executive. As evidence, Davidoff describes how the power extends to using hoards of cash to buy other companies. For example, Zuckerberg reportedly told his board of the $1 billion purchase of Instagram only one day in advance, with little if any opportunity to question the deal. Also highlighted is the existence of what we can call interlocking boards—a term from the past—where directors serve on multiple company boards resulting in a “clubby” atmosphere. Davidoff notes that there are arguments supporting the Silicon Valley phenomenon, where the CEO has tremendous power: “Where technology moves quickly, innovation is a must and decision making must be fast and creative for a company to survive. Presumably, these companies give control to their founders and chief executives because they have to act decisively. And these founders built these companies into successes.”

But the question remains as to whether these founders will continue to shape successful strategy with effective implementation and be able to make sound decisions going forward. As we know well, past success does not guarantee future performance, and having what may amount to only an advisory board, rather than a board of directors with meaningful authority, provides little comfort to investors who expect a board to provide not only advice and counsel, but also monitoring and clear direction to the CEO when needed. And one more factor—the checks and balances provided by an active merger or takeover market don't exist where the CEO controls voting shares.

Time will tell if these Silicon Valley imperial CEOs can position their companies in a dynamic industry to move with sufficient speed to survive and succeed, or if, with little oversight, they will ultimately fall by the wayside.

Meanwhile, the imperial CEO is rightfully gone for the vast majority of public companies, and where truly effective boards of directors exist they are positioned to add value in guiding their companies to meet the challenges ahead.