There is the way of the "Principal Developer" who is concerned with advancing
technical aspects. At some point they have become the go-to person for certain
technical topics and since no one in their organization has more experience,
they will eventually invent new standards.

And in this "deep tech" work, having too many collaboration can be harmful.
Teams that are trying to source input from everyone will eventually be paralyzed
and settle for solutions which represent the least common denominator.

This is called "Design by Committee":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_committee

It needs people who are in a position (or given the leeway) to take risks in
order to make leaps.

This must not be conflated with innovation (like
@ipreuss put it here:
https://twitter.com/ipreuss/status/1120292178297794561).

Groups are better in innovation (if they are mindful of group think!
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/opinion/sunday/the-rise-of-the-new-groupthink.html)
but small, strongly lead teams are better in execution. Innovation and Execution
are important but distinct components of success and they both required
different skills.

Since execution is also about efficiency (which you should not care too much
about in innovation) they will benefit from hierarchies, processes and quick
decision making. People with a lot of relevant experience are great in
evaluating all options and making those decisions.