This definition leaves out those in a bureaucracy who are only devoted to themselves. I assume since their personal devotions may or may not have to do with the goals of the organization or the organization itself that their impact cancels out.
[0] - https://www.npr.org/2020/01/30/800922222/when-institutions-a... [1] - https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/the-big-econ-error
You had the true believers in the mission, which was a minority. You had an army of bureaucrats, who were solely motivated by a steady paycheck and were incentivized to be paperwork and meeting maximalists to justify their lifetime appointment. And then you had a large minority -- larger than the true believers -- of grifters and sinecures, typically a nephew of the president of some undeveloped country or similar, who were openly there to collect as much free money as possible without even the pretense of work.
That last group, while obviously devoted to themselves, were devoted to the organization to the extent that they are parasites and the organization is the host. But they only need the organization to exist, not the organization's mission.
The difference is some people see a path to personal success by creating shareholder value (better product, less cost, etc.), while other people focus on fortifying their current arrangement to ensure it can't be made worse.
Indeed that's a frequent specimen, along with what I would call "devoted to nothing" - simple freeloaders, there for the ride, just getting by through the law of minimal effort ...