Good point. I guess a good manager in the right context might reduce that conflict by observing that having both a Constance and a Shor can, in many cases, be best of all? And working well together, such a team might ‘grow the pie’ such that salary isn’t so zero-sum...?
In that model, being a Constance (or Shor) who is demonstrably good at working with Shors (Constances) might be a better strategy than being a Constance (or Shor) who is good at convincing managers that the other is a waste of money.
In reality, there are more people then just Constance and Shor. In particular the Constances and Shors in the Obama campaign managed to get grassroots organizers defunded (Howard Dean’s 50 state stategy did get defunded). The consolidations of the campaign spending on a few firms is part of the background of this conflict.