If I had to pin down a singular reason why leadership is almost universally weak across the industry, it would be that everyone prefers to avoid accountability, and no one is willing to bet on their own decision making.
The master algorithm for cultivating strong leadership is just Bayes' rule. If an employee makes good decisions they should have more influence over the organization's resources.
If they make bad decisions they should have less influence over the organization's resources. Influence maps to probability.
Most organizations aren't setup to do this well.
There is no where for bad leaders to go if they can't also contribute directly, and there is a reluctance to demote people or reduce their influence.
A reluctance to demote has to be paired with a reluctance to promote. Consistently making good decisions is likely to be recognized artificially slowly, to prevent wage increases.
The master algorithm for cultivating strong leadership is just Bayes' rule. If an employee makes good decisions they should have more influence over the organization's resources. If they make bad decisions they should have less influence over the organization's resources. Influence maps to probability.
Most organizations aren't setup to do this well. There is no where for bad leaders to go if they can't also contribute directly, and there is a reluctance to demote people or reduce their influence. A reluctance to demote has to be paired with a reluctance to promote. Consistently making good decisions is likely to be recognized artificially slowly, to prevent wage increases.