I'm not really as pessimistic as all that. True, in the companies I've worked for there was always a tendency for the domineering types to make it to the top, but there is definitely a spectrum involved, a bell curve that could conceivably be shifted more towards cooperation than currently if the zeitgeist favored that more. Maybe after some time with more women on the boards?

In my experience the women who make it to these levels are no less domineering than the men, and often more so.

Don't think there's any evidence for that.

I see it in most companies I work at, I see the most aggressive delegation minded extroverts climbing to the top and those heads down getting shit done stepped over much of the time or even considered less important because they are not playing the social game. We need a study to see this?

That doesn't mean it's the best model. Successful in the sense of the career ladder, then maybe you're right. Successful as in productive or good for the organization or society, probably not. They are responsible for many of the biggest organizational failures.

> This is an inherent trait of our modern result-driven system.

Is being result-driven modern?

I believe it's a modern version of result-driven.

Results drive modernity

> It seems like the process of populating the top tiers in large orgs routinely sifts out people who know how to cooperate, and promote the people who only know how to dominate.

I don't think it's that simple. As you move up, you lose touch with those below you because the problems that can get you fired come from your other executive peers and the C suite. Most of these problems are really hard to explain because they are kind of stupid. Someone's sleeping with the CEO and wants something. Another VP promised the company would do X for an investor who will withold investment if X doesn't happen. Everyone is terrified of a lawsuit because someone got liquored up and said something to the media at a conference. Our rock star, investor-placed, infallible CFO made a mistake and we have one third the cash we thought we did. And your job as executive is to make it happen even if it is stupid. So it comes across as domineering and very political:

"We're not doing that, Dave. We're doing this. Because I said so."

If the executive took time to explain:

"We're not doing that, Dave. I had to make a deal with CMO Schmidt (who referred me to the CEO for my job and is married in to the owner's family) because he committed that we would be ready to release feature X at convention Y at last week's investor meeting. So, that integration with Z that will make us a bunch of money isn't going to happen. I know, it's stupid. But we're doing the stupid. And yes, that guy who makes 3x what I do is an absolute idiot."

This is why I much prefer to work in companies where the owners are still working in the business and the whole team is "dealt in" on outcomes (i.e. in a startup, has options) and executives are looking to increase the valuation of options/shares instead of trying to max out some badly designed "multi-dimensional, goal-aligned incentive structure".

> This is why I much prefer to work in companies where the owners are still working in the business and the whole team is "dealt in" on outcomes (i.e. in a startup, has options) and executives are looking to increase the valuation of options/shares instead of trying to max out some badly designed "multi-dimensional, goal-aligned incentive structure".

This is incidentally why stock based comp exists

I don't know if you should call that results driven.

Results tend to come from cooperation and collaboration.

What you might be looking for is that were in an attribution-driven system and culture?