This might be a minor quibble but I don't like it when people conflate DPOS, the blockchain consensus mechanism, with the other governance structures in BitShares.
I don't think DPOS (i.e. the system that elects the witnesses who produce blocks) has any major flaw, technical or incentive-based. The other governance structures (committee, workers, voting rights, funding allocation) is a different story.
I understand that is what you seem to mean, but I think it is worth stating that difference.

Yes, this is exactly what I meant and thank you for pointing it out.
I agree, the block production layer of DPOS works perfectly, it's the governance layer of DPOS that failed.

However, the governance features in BitShares do technically allow mimicking something close to traditional corporate structures. The committee is the board of directors which is elected by the BTS stakeholders. A long-term worker proposal sending considerable funds to the committee account could be elected by the stakeholders. The committee would then redirect the funds (perhaps keeping a small portion to compensate them for their work) to another account that they choose (the CEO).

The problem is, by design the committee was not meant to work this way and with the current mindset of the shareholders there is no way to redefine the committee's role in the way you propose (which I like a lot). It seems to me that the system needs to collapse (or at least come to a complete stall) to make the shareholders realize the gravity of the situation. As of now, most of them seem to be confident that everything will be fine ("we don't need a leader"), just as the recent holders of the DAO are confident that collective investment decision making will work in practice.