As unhelpful as it is to solidify a false dichotomy with an explicit call to cliché, this isn’t even true, anyway. It’s not necessarily true that leaders delegate to the competent, for reasons you later spell out explicitly. So why is #2 not also a poor pathway to leadership? Your whole thesis seems to contradict relying at all on leveraging #2 as a path forward. Leaders aren’t delegating appropriately, because they misjudge competence. And stepping up because you see your chance to shine is not necessarily hubris. It is in fact how competent people who have been marginalized actually get noticed as competent, of that’s possible at all within their organization. Much of this post makes sense, but not these premises.