I find that asymmetric/concentrated power in the appropriate (!) hands can lead to better results for most things. For instance, I'd rather put my money in a company where the CEO has the proper vision and considerable agency over one that is ruled by committee, like most tech titants. I wouldn't advocate for a regression to authoritary regimes, but I think they can stabilize and accelerate progression towards greater objectives as opposed to a segmented and elected political power which rules on a 4 (maybe 8) years "vision" (colored heavily by polls optimization), for example China or ex-Yugoslavia. Linux probably benefited greatly from having Linus. It can obviously go wrong (North Korea, too many kings to count, WeWork, Theranos..).

I think it's a good hedge for NASA to have this policy, they probably selected a good pick in the first place, and if it went wrong they could probably easily replace the position [source needed].

Singapore is a fairly good example of a (mostly) benign dictator - built a modern developed city-state out of what was basically a swamp.

Good example is Google vs Amazon/Apple. Google's culture is very much a democracy of sort inside. Apple/Amazon more top down direction.

The problem, of course, is survivorship bias.

Its similar to Monarchy vs Democracy. A great monarch can get a lot more done than a leader in a democracy. They can also do a lot more harm.

If you want to maximize the potential of a company, you must choose a great CEO and give them near-unlimited power. The problem is that most boards aren't qualified/able to find one, which is why founders that survive the filter to growing into a mega-company are the ones you listed- they are the ones who've already got one.

Tim Cook is doing fine, but he doesn't wield near the influence Jobs did- look how long it took him to finesse Joni Ive out of the company, despite his choices causing massive problems for Apple.

At tech companies, it’s often in the form of hackathons, hackweeks, or 20% time.

Is 20% a real thing anywhere, aside from select google employees?

Googler here. Yes, in my team we have a colleague that is spending one day a week trying to solve a particular problem we have with a completely novel approach. He had an idea after we presented what we are up to in one of our Org summit. Furthermore, it is really a streamlined process, ie you only need your manager approval.

That's not 20% time. That's a project for your primary work area.

When I was at Google (long ago), you were very welcome to do a 20% project. But it was not considered in your performance review.

So you'd better do it outside of your regular job, adding up to a 120% workload.

It is at 3M