I messed up a bunch of words and it drastically alterted what I was trying to say. Here's the correction
Doesn't this apply to any organization?
If you care about the goals (engineer, metal worker, etc) of an organization you AREN'T going to be promoted because of your value and need for that task. For example the lead designer for BMW M cars has great value in non-managerial role.
Those that don't care about the goals can then focus on caring about the structure, the politics, fitting in, etc. They are going to be promoted because they are modifying their behavior for that purpose.
This doesn't apply in all situations but basically business people care about business and when they are successful end up in charge.
I think the point is a criticism of organizational bearucracy becoming an end in itself. Any organization can probably end up here, not all are at that point and some may have control to prevent bureaucrats from gaining total control. I don't have good sources but I imagine something along use lines is the common criticism of politicians that they become pure political operatives, disconnected from their constituents actual needs. I imagine an alternative to this would be sortition where randomizing the office holder theoretically minimizes their ability to perpetuate the institution for the sake of its existence.
Doesn't this apply to any organization?
If you care about the goals (engineer, metal worker, etc) of an organization you AREN'T going to be promoted because of your value and need for that task. For example the lead designer for BMW M cars has great value in non-managerial role.
Those that don't care about the goals can then focus on caring about the structure, the politics, fitting in, etc. They are going to be promoted because they are modifying their behavior for that purpose.
This doesn't apply in all situations but basically business people care about business and when they are successful end up in charge.