That's a charitable take on the "professionals" (and arguably also on the "vocationals"). Both your model and the more pessimistic one can happen, but I think t

That's a charitable take on the "professionals" (and arguably also on the "vocationals"). Both your model and the more pessimistic one can happen, but I think the pessimistic model is what happens more often as an organisation fails. I'd say that often the "professionals" are "vocationals" who failed upwards. They're the teacher who can't teach, but got transferred to the department. It's the engineer who "failed upward". It's the people who liked the idea of being a teacher or nurse or doctor or rocket scientist, but couldn't hack it in the front lines. Sometimes it's cheaper or easier to transfer a hack into management (or some non-core admin role) rather than firing them. Sometimes it's the least essential person who ends up nominally in charge (the "Dilbert Principle"). Sometimes people go hard for promotions because they are sick of their job (because it's hard for them, because they're incompetent or lazy). An org might want a super-hero for a leadership role, but there's no super heros so they only get bullshitters ticking all the boxes. There's a few "professionals" who genuinely think that being in charge is more important than working at the front. Maybe they see a good boss resign, and want to fill their shoes. Or they have a bad boss resign, and think they'll try to make a difference. Or they've seen stupid but well-meaning "vocationalists" tear things apart because they have a dumb idea that they're pushing, and think "a good boss wouldn't let these well-meaning idiots do harm rather than good". But true professionals (either professionals at heart, or vocationalists who see the need to be professionals) are often not going to be as numerous as burnt-out, lazy, failed vocationalists falling upwards. And once there's too many burnt-out, lazy, failed vocationalists in management, the organisation is going to suffer.