That is not new, or even new to America. We know that the telegraph companies saw no need for the telephone and that the telephone company was not interested in radio and on and on. It is more than true. It is a truism that every organization seeks stability.

Yes, for some in some times and places, there have been paradigmatic moments. Hewlett Packard is an easy example. Or was. But they are not like that now.

You are closer to the truth when you identify "managers" of other people's assets as your culprits. However, the opposite would be failures of fiduciary responsibility as managers invest other people's resources in their own dreams and schemes. The solution of course is outside-the-box "management" i.e., entrepreneurship.

Corporations tried to sell "intrapreneuring" in the 1990s, but it did not work well. The failure was of the same nature as the inability of MBA programs to teach entrepreneurship. It must be learned, but it cannot be taught.

If these rules be followed then there would be no other way to bring value to investors but to cheat.

They have been there and already doing that for a while now.

That is not to say that your outline might keep one employed and the status quo unchallenged.

Probably closer to the truth than most would admit. I'd add not feeling comfortable or allowing yourself to feel reliant for very long.

(sorry for the typo and repost. Damn cellphones and thick fingers.)

Having tried to sell new technology to American businesses, I agree.
Avoidance of risk by managers far overrides almost any conceivable benefit from new technology unless that technology is incremental (not disruptive) and owned by a large corporation with lots of lobbyists (pull.)