People at the top only need to make a few big strategic decisions a year. Some of them, purely through dumb luck, will make the rights one and continue to rise.

People at the top only need to make a few big strategic decisions a year. Some of them, purely through dumb luck, will make the rights one and continue to rise. This is not meritocracy, it's a crap shoot. People at the bottom make lots of little decisions every day. They may get lucky now and then, but over a year, the occasional bad luck will cancel that out. So you have more meritocracy at the bottom, and less the higher up you go. In a large organization like RIM, the principle talent of senior management is not strategic decision making, or management, but rent seeking: appropriating the product of the lower ranks for their own glory. Other principle qualities: fine grooming and dress, a firm hand shake, politics, public speaking, and punctuality. These qualities are practiced daily. You can't fake it. Strategic decision making? A few times a year. Add a little random luck in strategic decisions, and you have the CEO. There are enough contenders for his position that someone, somewhere will have a string of good enough fortune to land them there, regardless of merit. [hat tip to Taleb re: executives and strategic decision making]