I've wondered about this as well, though I came to different conclusions than you. I think you get as many political people in small organisations as large, but the environment causes their drives for power and influence to manifest different
ly. Two main features of small companies which are relevant:

Everyone knows each other. This makes being friendly and likable more of an advantage.

Less structure. This means advancing in your career doesn't involve climbing the greasy pole, but rather coming up with initiatives to help the company grow.

Venkatesh Rao at ribbonfarm has some interesting thoughts on this, if you haven't come across him already. Basically he says large organisations tend to consist of three types of people: sociopaths, clueless and losers. Small organisations have only two types: the sociopathic founders and losers. Only as organisations grow do they acquire the layer of clueless middle managers.

I think it's sad but true. Corporate America gets so bogged down on bottom lines that the focus on creativity gets dropped out. And the results seem to be more important than the process. I think that's another reason why extreme growth happens in small business more than in the giants. The processes in small businesses are much more transparent, therefore employees get credit more regularly and may be encouraged to take more risks. Whereas in larger corporate environments individual's creative impulses are often denied because supervisors refuse to take responsibility for their subordinate's ideas.

It would be great if we cold focus more on the process and trust that the results will come.