As noted before, I have worked for some "JCs" like Trump: they build an echo chamber around themselves, fill it with yes-men, and anyone who dares say anything his nibs does not want to hear, is pushed out.

That's a little different, though.

Formal organizations, like a corporation, typically don't suffer from collective action problems. Collective action problems result when you have independent autonomous actors whose best group outcome might be if everyone cooperates, but where each decision-maker faces individual incentives to defect from the group. In the absence of some ability to enforce a common plan of action, the outcome that results from all the individual decision-making can be very sub-optimal.

Because of that, there can be a substantial benefit to trying to find a way to enforce conformity. That's why political parties have Whips (and why the Whip is usually a pretty powerful person in party leadership). If the party can force people to conform to the party line, the party will be able to achieve more of their goals. Parties are stronger if everyone rows in the same direction, unions are stronger if everyone honors the strike, etc.

An actual company or corporation typically has the ability to enforce a common plan of action. "Yes-men" aren't so defined by their unwillingness to defy the company's business plan and refuse to follow the instructions of the CEO. They're marked by their unwillingness to offer candid advice or information within the decision-making process. In almost any company, if a vice-president was actively and publicly working to get the Board of Directors to force the CEO to make a different choice or reverse one of their decisions, that VP would certainly be fired ASAP. We see that in politics - and sometimes esteem it - because political positions are structured differently than positions in a company.