Market performance is not the real driver of the company’s decisions.
Every company has different stakeholders, who have different interests. The German state of lower saxony has a 20% stake in VW. That doesn't mean that VW does not compete with other car makers.
Also it seems disingenuous to act like boards of US Fortune 500 companies aren't filled with ex-government/intelligence/military staff that play a role in aligning the company's interest with the government's interests.
It's soft power that results in similar outcomes. Look at Theranos's board, it's not as unique as people think when compared to other majors...
Usually power is flowing the other way there though. Those people are on those boards so that they can influence government, rather than the other way around. I'm not sure if that's better or worse, though.
The gov influences companies through economic and legal incentives (subsidies, large gov contracts, etc..). This is especially true in important industries (energy, health care, tech).
Does having a large % of ex-gov/mil/intel board members increase the likelihood of a company landing these contracts? I wouldn't be surprised, if true (for many reasons).
Every company has different stakeholders, who have different interests. The German state of lower saxony has a 20% stake in VW. That doesn't mean that VW does not compete with other car makers.