Relying on consensus to make decisions is an abdication of leadership. The process optimizes for avoiding downsides rather than achieving excellence, leading to mediocre "6 out of 10" outcomes and preventing the outlier successes that leadership can unlock.

Promoting top individual contributors into management often backfires. Their competitive nature, which drove individual success, makes it hard to share tips, empathize with struggling team members, or handle interpersonal issues, turning a perceived win-win into a lose-lose situation.

Organizations mistakenly conflate visibility with value. The skills for self-promotion—taking credit and controlling narratives—are fundamentally different from those of actual leadership, which involve empowering others. This confusion leads to promoting the best self-promoters, not the best leaders.

Contrary to the popular belief that power corrupts, research suggests it acts as an amplifier. If a person is already "pro-social"—oriented towards helping others—power can increase their empathy and effectiveness. If they are selfish, power will magnify those negative traits.

David Rubenstein highlights that despite risks like assassination, impeachment, and public failure, individuals still pursue the presidency. This is not a rational career choice but the ultimate expression of ambition in politics—a drive to reach the absolute "top of the totem pole" in their profession, regardless of the personal cost.

The belief that simply 'hiring the best person' ensures fairness is flawed because human bias is unavoidable. A true merit-based system requires actively engineering bias out of processes through structured interviews, clear job descriptions, and intentionally sourcing from diverse talent pools.

Companies often cannot differentiate between healthy confidence and narcissism. Narcissistic individuals excel at self-promotion and appearing decisive, which are frequently misidentified as leadership qualities, leading to their accelerated advancement over more competent but less self-aggrandizing peers.

The Catholic Church's method of selecting a Pope—a secret, deliberative process where cardinals vote repeatedly until a supermajority is reached—is a powerful example of an "election without candidates." This bottom-up meritocracy prioritizes finding a formidable, consensus candidate over rewarding the person who campaigned the hardest, a model that could be adapted for political and organizational leadership.

Traditional big tech ladders often promote based on scope and cross-team influence, encouraging politics. A better system focuses on skill gradients like "truth-seeking." It rewards being right about foundational decisions, not just being loud or well-positioned, which fosters a healthier engineering culture.