> So they go into "soft skills" that their more talented peers aren't interested in, and sandbag themselves with authority once they get it.

Maybe their more talented peers should learn some of these soft skills and take an interest in authority positions instead of acting like losers? Is there some smart-person conspiracy to put idiots in charge that nobody has clued me in to?

I don't want to be going too far in telling my talented peers their business, but if capable people aren't interested in doing anything to take a leadership position then the leadership is going to be incapable by definition.

In my experience, when someone (not being euphemistic, I've witnessed it many times) too mission-focused tries to get beyond program-level leadership they inevitably get sidelined and either coast to retirement or demote themselves back down. At a certain level making good products on time and on budget is no longer the game, and feeling an obligation to do so is looked down upon as naive. Additionally, failure is not punished in any material sense.

Boeing's leadership doesn't care about their aircraft quality beyond legal liability, Meta hasn't cared about the quality of the facebook newsfeed in over a decade, Elon Musk doesn't care about making cars or colonizing Mars anymore, and rest assured Pateron's leadership will be just fine in every material sense, the worst they have to worry about is reputational loss that will likely be short-lived.

Put it all together and you get an incentive structure where outside of small companies/divisions, and the rare exceptional leader, the people who care about the products the least are the ones that make it into leadership, and good luck convincing that club to change their priorities.