Everyone up the chain of command is wasting someone else's money. Ultimately it's stockholder money, but the stockholders are actually giant retirement funds, and the fund managers who use the voting powers don't actually have their own money in the fund.
Wasting that money does bring the status of having a bigger organization, more direct reports, etc. Saving the money brings the questionable honor of being the manager whose team shrunk by 25% in a year.
The only corporations where efficiency still is key, are the ones where the owner-CEO is still able to keep an eye on the whole operation.
But that does not explain real life differences between companies in the same sector and with the same type of ownership. In my sector I've seen good and bad cultures at work. The difference is astute. So there must be aspects of culture (and change) that are attainable by stock-owned companies, but only attained by some.
Wasting that money does bring the status of having a bigger organization, more direct reports, etc. Saving the money brings the questionable honor of being the manager whose team shrunk by 25% in a year.
The only corporations where efficiency still is key, are the ones where the owner-CEO is still able to keep an eye on the whole operation.