I think if it were true, he would not have been king for long.
Indeed, in the event it worked out quite well for them. First conquer the world with the united Macedonian army, then partition the world between them when Alexander dies.
Again while I absolutely agree with your point, he was in fact, not a king for very long.
History is written by the literate. (i.e. the rich for most of human history)
In this case, most information about Alexander the Great comes from four distinct sources, the most famous being Arrian of Nicomedia who famously used Ptolemy I Soter as their primary source.
Ptolemy at the time he wrote his testimony was already a king and only had benefit of grandizing his own contributions not his old King. His account was famed for how straightforward it was and seemed only to confirm Alexander's exceptional leadership in battle.
Do you think, if it were true, that he was an entitled brat who just did what his commanders told him to do, that they would have written that?
We have a mythical commander who did everything right. And it's likely just that: a myth.