To me, the difference between cronyism vs trusted VPs is simply whether they were successful or not in the long run. And you're right, you lose _lots_ of brill

To me, the difference between cronyism vs trusted VPs is simply whether they were successful or not in the long run. And you're right, you lose _lots_ of brilliant talent when the helm changes hands. I think what's helpful is to imagine you are that exec going in to a new position of a large org, 26,000 people, say Chief Marketing Officer. A few know you, but there are a lot of new faces who now have to call you boss and answer to your directions whether they agree or not. You now have to convince each major head that what you're doing is the right thing. How long does it take to build that level of trust? Typically years and a few large projects won. Some of those heads have been around for a long time and don't like the way you do things. If you want to be effective, you don't have much time to figure out who is toxic, who is simply lazy, who resists your leadership. Some resist openly, but most behind closed doors by dragging things, sowing discord. etc etc. You clearly can't keep everyone - it doesn't do any good. At a certain level trust and speed make up for brilliance. Just like hard work/grit can close a gap of genius. Again, I agree with you - lots of good guys are lost. So many times at the detriment of the company, but that means the outgoing leader picked the wrong successor. Separately I enjoy this topic. Its our human condition laid bare.