I might be wrong, but to my knowledge the Packers are the only team without an "owner". Rather they are owned by people buying stock in the "company" (the fans). They have a committee that oversees the club, and so they then hire someone to run the team. But above them is a HUGE Board of Directors with like 20 or so people. Thus the final authority is an executive committee who must reach a consensus to make any leadership change and they must get the support of the Board. Even more, Murphy the GM, is a member of the executive committee (the President), so consensus to oust him or force him to change direction is doubly hard.
It's been this way for decades, so it's not as if it can't work. On the other hand, a strong owner can step in to a nasty stalemate situation like the Packers and have the single authority to make changes or to demand a certain course of action. And, if you're an owner, are you going to allow your GM to get at personal odds with your two best players? Even from a PR standpoint? One a first ballot HOF QB? So unless the committee can come to a consensus (hard for a 7 man committee to do) to change leadership, then the GM/Committee President can run roughshod with not a lot of push back from the top.
I'll take a good and strong owner over such an approach any day. Of course, I suppose if Murphy was really good at what he does, it wouldn't matter.
