Its also my experience that the reverse is true, small charities tend to be staffed by true believers who are working as hard as possible towards their goal.
Same.
I did some consulting for a separate branch of the same organisation.
They only had ~4 full time staff, people who had been promoted out of the volunteer pool. There was a small amount of nepotism, but everyone getting paid was absolutely crazy about the purpose of the organisation. And IIRC the salaries were very low.
Compare that to the branch I existed in, and it was chalk and cheese. Layers and layers of do nothing management drawing spectacular wages and finding ways to send themselves to fabulous parties and media events.
There was a component of the business focused on rehabilitation, and it operated for 3-4 years with only 6 or so staff. They would go on fantastic rehab holidays to demonstrate the benefit of their programs. Unfortunately for those first years they struggled to find volunteers for their rehab programs, so they were constantly sending their own staff on tours of europe or sailing adventures etc.
Large dis-organizations with many stakeholders have the same dynamics.
Governments at least are inclined to help people whereas enterprises aren't.
But my "And in this crazy company we had multiple competing teams with different management responsible for IT infrastructure" stories pale in comparison with his "Well we have 12 teams in 3 separate lines of business technically spanning 2 ministries" stories.
They get well kept mind. But they never "own" the proceeds. IIRC one of the directors of mine was found with 3 corporate vehicles assigned to him.
Now on the flipside, being upper management in the same charity was a goldmine. Upper 6 figure salary, no expectations, vendors taking you on substantial holidays and meals to get your business, low 6 figure bonus every 12 months.
Different worlds tbh.