Not specific to SpaceX, but there's definitely a 'force multiplier' for having the correct environment (managers, organization, compensation, resources, etc) to build things larger than the sum of their parts.

No we wouldn't be anywhere close to it. I fact we would be, much, much, much worse off.

Simply factually speaking, neither ULA, Arianespace or Russia were actually innovating. The chance that any rocket like Falcon 9 existed without SpaceX is essentially 0%. Many of the young engineers at SpaceX would have simply been stuck in the bloated companies that were not innovating.

Tom Mueller himself is also a good example. He was basically the best engine guy on the planet, but he was at TRW and despite being technically better in many cases, lobbying didn't allow to get many contracts.

We can talk about the rest of the leadership, many like Hans Königsman were working at a rocket startup that had very limited chance of every becoming even a modest success.

We can also see it in the simple efficiency of these companies, and their capability to waste talent. Consider that the complete Falcon program, including engine upgrades, re-usability, human-rating, Falcon Heavy and all the 1000s of upgrades likely cost somewhere in the order of 3-4 billion $.

Now consider that the Ariane 6, a minimal upgrade over the Ariane 5 that mostly consists of reusing developments already done for Ariane 5 ME is gone end up costing 5+ billion $.

So if all these engineers were not at SpaceX the industry would simply be smaller, many working on cars or whatever. And those that were in the industry would be working on low impact projects that waste lots of government money.

> Is being a good CEO just taking the better share of workers who would have made the same contribution anywhere

SpaceX relied on leadership from young engineers who would have been responsible for managing like 1 screw on F-35 instead.

The idea that these people would have anywhere close to the same impact if not for SpaceX just doesn't hold up to even minimal investigation.

> or was there something specific about the management/organization/vision at Elon's companies that lead to a higher outcome/worker than would be expected otherwise?

I don't think anybody that looks at the space industry before SpaceX could realistically come to the conclusion that SpaceX was compelte step change for space flight. The largest one arguably since the R-7.

And that's just SpaceX itself, the New Space industry that got inspired and funded largely based on SpaceX success is gigantic. The amount of private investment between 2010-now is incomparably larger then in any other time. And guess what, many of these young engineers from SpaceX are in leadership position in all of these companies. So SpaceX kind of acted like a seed to expand the whole industry.

I think human history has shown over and over in many domains that leadership, vision and strategy are absolutely vital to achieve difficult goals.