But, I'm sure the first multicellular organisms were no picnic, either. Eventually humans will learn to work together way better than today and anyone trying already now has my attention and sympathy, especially if there are positive testimonials by employees (there's no shortage of managers who claim to run a different kind of org / culture when it's either false or true in a bad sense, meaning, their org is much worse than the standard system; in fact I like managers who apply zero lipstick to the pig that is their org and do the standard ugly thing in an openly ugly way - teaches you how to operate in this environment more quickly vs trying to get people to remain naive to their detriment)
That said, I think your analysis is a bit weakened by a moral elements (good managers vs bad managers). And even more, it's not necessarily bad for an organization to have locally controlled resources. One can posit an omniscient central controller that would manage resources better than local managers but it's likely that there are limits to both central controllers and local managers. What's "best" depends on the task, the organization and who's judging the result.
which is fine, because if hiring someone would dilute their profits, it means the new hire is decreasing the efficiency of the organization. Normally, you would hire if you find that the existing employees cannot complete all of the work required, as there's too much - aka, leaving business/profits on the table due to lack of room.
Aligning each employee's incentives with ROI seems extremely difficult.
The former Yugoslavia had a system of self-managed enterprises where large firms shared profits equally among employees and employees ran the enterprise democratically (usually electing a manager). The problem is that profitable enterprises would democratically decide not to hire any more people since doing so would dilute their profits.