I might suggest Naval misunderstands what it means to manage something (which is funny because he's known for being wildly successful at having done so). It's n

I might suggest Naval misunderstands what it means to manage something (which is funny because he's known for being wildly successful at having done so). It's not solving problems, it's extracting value from them. The board he was on congratulated itself because it had managed, e.g. to continue to extract value from whatever cause or dynamic it ostensibly exists to contribute money into. It has no interest in solving problems, as then what would it exist to manage? This is very close to the cynicism of those who accuse for-profit enterprise as only doing things for money with no care for the people their decisions effect, with the slight modification that it's not so much the money managerialists do it for as the power of continuing to do it, money is just one effect of sustaining a dynamic. Imo, Naval's generalization succumbs to exceptions because it misses the above point of what these groups and boards are formed to do.