I believe we aren't connecting on this and because I'm admittedly not well versed on the topic, I'll take responsibility.
Many times in corporate life I've seen where the average performer under an excellent manager might grade out as superior under an inexperienced/mediocre/weak manager.
The two managers use the same evaluation template provided by human resources yet, no matter how impartial they try to be, the way they interpret the criteria is vastly different based on the sum total of their individual experiences.
Having said all of that, if someone believes they work in an environment characterized by an objective meritocracy where the relationship between effort and reward is highly correlated across the organization, please let me know where I can submit a resume.
No, I think we are connecting. You and I both see that at least one aspect of MacArthur’s opposition to Wainwrights CMH may have been because he had been jilted on getting one himself in the past. If that is one of his motivations, then I say that is a disgusting example of leadership, but not one I would find unexpected by the likes of MacArthur (hence hubris).
And when we think about it, we haven’t even gotten into Eichelberger’s CMH. He was put in for one as well, and MacArthur blocked it too. Unfortunately for Eichelberger, he couldn’t overcome this MacArthur obstruction and ended up never getting the CMH which I would say he deserved more than MacArthur ever did.
If you really look at the entire scope of things there’s a trend. MacArthur had a tendency to undermine his own subordinates if it may detract from his own glory. This is why you don’t even hear about Wainwright from Philippine dispatches until AFTER MacArthur has left.