I agree with you for companies that require a lot of capital. In technology companies where, often, ideas, perspectives and vision are assets, I think you want someone in the company who can give you that guidance, to tell you what the customers want, and when they want it.

After all, if I was going to do what I think is profitable, I don't think accepting a pay check from the company is worth giving up the entire upside of my own ideas - I'd quit and do my own thing. If I knew what customers wanted, and the company didn't, why stay?

You could have a situation where the sales people talk directly to the developers. If sales team were the managers, then they tend to over-promise. If engineering was in charge, then what they build tend to be out-of-touch with their market.

Taking out the manager is to bet that sales team and engineering team can work with each other directly with equal clout, and be able to maintain that equilibrium.

But for my own situation, if the founders decided to quit and promote me (and everyone else) to lead the company as a holacracy, providing only salary and no equity, I'd quit. I could work on my own ideas by myself with all of the equity, why do it in a company where I have none?