It's a nice article (upvoted) but I found it a little unpersuasive. "Management Methodology A is good; Management Methodology B is bad. We know this because o

It's a nice article (upvoted) but I found it a little unpersuasive. "Management Methodology A is good; Management Methodology B is bad. We know this because of Case Study A and Case Study B." Sure, but those case studies only represent two data points. We can't be confident we are interpreting those case studies correctly. We'd ideally like to have more data points, or stronger theoretical arguments for why Methodology A beats Methodology B. If an organization is under-performing dramatically, why isn't dramatic change appropriate? What if cost-cutting is the primary objective, and we aren't aiming to improve capabilities? Given that capitalist countries are generally nicer to live in than socialist ones (see e.g. North vs South Korea), what's so bad about making the government more capitalist? I didn't see persuasive answers to these questions; I got the sense the author was assuming the answers based on their ideological bias.