True. Research has shown that the underlying reason that most employees tacitly accept management hierarchy as legitimate is the lengthening of time horizons as you move up the hierarchy. If you run a business that builds, say, jet engines, you have to make multi-billion-dollar development bets today on where the industry will be in 10-20 years: what size planes will be flying, will air travel be hub-centric, how much will fuel costs drive the purchase equation, etc.
One of the questions about the advisability of Rawlinson holding both the Chief Technical Officer and Chief Executive Officer roles at Lucid revolves around this time horizon question. As CEO, he needs to focus on where EV markets will be on time horizons dictated by automotive development cycle lengths -- typically 7-10 years. This means a lot of time tracking and influencing developments in battery technology, materials science, electronics, propulsion, consumer buying patterns, political trends and legislation relating to fuels and infrastructure, etc. This also means keeping an eye on and recruiting emergent talent in the industry, as well as overseeing the functional integration of the whole organization, all the while being the public face of the company.
On the other hand, the CTO needs to have a much narrower, deeper, and closer-in focus on applied technology -- especially in a car company that is moving as many design and engineering needles at once as Lucid is.
This may explain why photographs of Rawlinson show a man who seems to have aged 20 years in the past 10.