I like the law because you can quite easily formulate it without bias.

Large enough orgs will indeed get people whose job is more closely aligned with the goal vs people whose job is more closely aligned with the existence of the org. _Because_ you need to keep investing energy to keep the org in existence. You can’t just do the goal only.

But being responsible for keeping the org in existence is not the same as responsible for the goals that the org was created for in the first place.

_and_ I can see how the people whose job it is to ensure the org keeps existing will gain the majority vote.

It’s like a law of nature: the way things fall out if you’re not consciously working to have them fall out differently.

(So it can be good for google to fire them from a “let’s keep existing standpoint” even though it might be contrary to having the easiest/optimal to use product. And if that is so, the keep existing vote will have the power) I don’t use google products really that much so I can’t speak to the merits of this example.