> And they get selected based on their track record of effective allocation of those resources.
I've seen too many managers fail upwards to truly believe that is true in general. In plenty of companies connections are just as or more important than being effective at allocating resources.
This is what motivates me in my ... admittedly belief.
Of course politics will always play a huge deciding part in resource allocation. But if the allocation is based on a small "elite" then it looks a lot like historical societies - and we think we have moved beyond that.
If we believe in democracy for our civic society, if we believe in the Totalitarian Bet, why not apply democracy to the companies that are too big to fail?
It is also why I suspect founder led companies do very well (if the founder is good enough) - the internicine politics just gets overwhelmed by the founder picking and choosing - but history has taught us that it's vanishingly rare to find such people, to place them in the elite and have them continue to make excellent decisions over decades.
I've seen too many managers fail upwards to truly believe that is true in general. In plenty of companies connections are just as or more important than being effective at allocating resources.