[sanderjd]

Yeah this is exactly it. But I think it's a good thing. It's a tradeoff between productivity and risk. It is productive but risky for "rockstars" to make big changes with very little consensus-seeking. Big changes are double edged, they have outsize impact, but it may be either positive or negative. So organizations rationally hedge that. The trick is to strike a good balance, giving up as little productivity as possible for the greatest reduction in risk. It's hard! Sometimes the right answer is just "empower one or a few people to do whatever they think best without ever seeking any buy in from anyone else", but not often. And "never let anyone do anything without a big slow sprawling committee giving permission" is essentially never the right answer. But there is lots of space in between these extremes!