I wonder if you're talking about the same problem. You're talking about management techniques. The article is about the inherent human problems of giving great power and authority to a few, and solving this issue by not doing so, not having any powerful bosses. I totally agree with your thoughts on "shut up and do as I say" management.
Perhaps power always corrupts, and it doesn't matter who is tapped to be boss, sooner or later, they're going to turn abusive, greedy, treacherous. But we could surely do a better job of picking people for such positions. A mistake I've seen organizations make, over and over, is mistaking a loudmouth for a proactive, energetic, go-getter. And even if they were right and the candidate for a management position actually is not a loudmouth, another mistake is thinking those characteristics-- energy and all that-- are the most important and best sign that a person would make a good manager. So they promote this person into positions of authority over others. They undervalue competence, evidently thinking that noise is more important.
And, sure, being seen and heard is important. But being wrong can be deadly. I'm not taking about technical mistakes, everyone makes those. I'm talking about the mistake of putting an incompetent loudmouth in charge. I've seen the loudmouth caught, and it's not pretty however well deserved. The loudmouth has drowned out everyone else, trampling upon the customs of polite discourse and professional behavior with peers, and with smooth talking persuaded upper management to put them in charge, and then has no idea what to do next. Won't ask for or accept any advice or help, because they see that as weak, and in any case they didn't get there by listening, they got there by talking over others. They are totally into the "shut up and follow orders" style of management. And their orders are "make it happen", and don't bother them with the boring details. But don't embarrass them and accomplish too much, as that might show them up, and they can't have that. They tend to take a pushy, bullying approach to the situation, trying to hang all the responsibility for mistakes or the lack of progress on others, as if the only purpose for the existence of underlings is to take the blame and the fall. Meantime, if anything good is accomplished, they of course try to hog all the credit for it, despite having actively tried to personally sabotage the accomplishment when it looked like someone else, some underling, would reap the credit. Hilarious to see a loudmouth trying to take credit for something that was thought good, until learning that it is actually regarded as a waste of time, then instantly doing a 180 and blaming it all on underlings. When they have to get up in front of an audience and present something real is when it all crashes and burns. Cold comfort when the bullying idiot who should never have been given such responsibility gets ripped apart, as the entire project gets canceled and everyone loses their jobs.