A given company may or may not be organized this way.

IBM had a system of "blue dollars". If the server group sells a computer, it gets revenue ("green dollars", i.e. real money). The leaders of the server group are credited some fraction of the real money as "blue dollars", which they can give to teams that enabled their success. For example, if sales are being won based on a new feature of the XLC compiler, the server group leads would recognize them by sending their blue dollars to the XLC compiler team. Teams choose what to do (and whose problems to solve) to maximize the amount of blue dollars they can get. Promotions and pay go to people who drive blue dollar "revenue" for their team.

Why does IBM work this way? It is too big to be centrally planned: If the compiler team does amazing work, and the engineers get no credit, all the smart and hardworking engineers leave. The central planners in Armonk re-invented a market economy to figure out what work matters and reward it.

Yes its decentralised still. And the idea is that competition is the force that keep things in check - with shareholders interests taken care of with the focus of manager's being to optimise for whatever makes the owners better off.

At the extreme with 'AI' - there's no need for firms to exist.

'Power to the people' was always transitory - do you think the govt is dumb? Lets take a simple form of capital: cameras. Would cheap cameras exist without the private sector competing for shareholders interests? Probably not.

They aid and abet it. It benefits their own interests. This game goes on until the govt no longer see's the need for a private sector anymore.