The more fluff a person in a leadership position is operating with in place of actual productive ability, the more they will need to surround themselves with as

The more fluff a person in a leadership position is operating with in place of actual productive ability, the more they will need to surround themselves with associates who are willing to accept this type of substitution. Some types of human nature accept this more readily than others so it can easily be allowed to grow out of hand, but almost everyone else notices once the crap level approaches complete fullness. All leaders have gaps that need to be compensated for or filled in by associates both upstream and downstream, but especially subordinates, and this is usually accomplished by shrewd manipulation of resources, which can be either good or evil. If a person in a leadership position can not grow the resources when that is the primary objective, either from investors or customers, that can be a sign that the talent of the so-called leader is more talk than action, sometimes even fantasy versus reality. Sometimes that type of talent works better on investors than customers, sometimes not either one. Both are usually served by action even better than talk, and look how far talk can get you. If this guy was working for Thos. Edison or for Elizabeth Holmes at an early time, their companies might have had faster growth than they did, with Edison's shareholders reaching institutional status earlier & bigger in the long run, and Theranos reaching it's final conclusion sooner as well. If Edison or Holmes were working for this guy it wouldn't have made much difference if they had been below-average Joes & Janes instead. Kind of puts celebrity in perspective.