It's like that old saying: “Don't attribute to malice – or incompetence – that which can be explained by path dependency.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_dependence

OK, not the saying. Perhaps should be.

Assuming a sufficient base level of competence, more of how things go for company A vs. company B can be explained by random walks through events (their dependent paths) than by management.

A competent and persistent leader can increase the odds, but under close study, fortuitousness and serendipity – or luck of the draw and timing – have more explanatory power.

Meanwhile, just try to make your own luck. Make sure you happen to things, instead of things happening to you.

It does not have to be either one. Zuckerberg is simply not a great leader, apparently. This is not surprising. Few people can run big companies. There is a huge spectrum between "dimwitted" and "great CEO".

The way the sentence is structured implies he is evil either way. He is either (dim witted and evil) or (just evil).

Personally I believe very few people to be actually evil, but it's a question of definition. To me, you need to be deliberate to be evil. E.g. Elon Musk isn't evil (I think), he's just insane. Peter Thiel might actually be evil, because his actions are deliberate and planned. Zuckerberg also doesn't strike me as evil, just incredibly socially inept (and maybe dimwitted).

But no, you're right, it doesn't have to be one or the other.