She and/or you have a false conception of what a big five corporation is, or how it works. Yous probably also have a false conception of how relations of production under capitalism work as well. The man higher up the hierarchy at the FAANG has a better grasp of how these things work. Often, people don't realize their conceptions were wrong until they get let go.
That she worked tirelessly, was well liked does not matter. That in this short life we have, that she skipped vacations to devote more time to the company does not matter.
You said the person above her is not smart but he clearly is - he is higher up and survived and she is lower down and was cut.
Insofar as it being healthy for these companies for him to be there - him being there is in the nature of the corporation and perhaps its intrinsic infirmities, just as it is intrinsic to relations of production under capitalism.
One would hope that something as dramatic as not only him being over her, but him staying and her going would disabuse you of these notions. Especially the idea that she had sone kind of relationship within the corporation where working tirelessly and skipping vacations would engender any loyalty on the part of the corporation's higher managers and owners.
While this may make sense for the individual and their actions, I do not see how this is healthy or good for the organization. And, to my original question, I struggle to understand why organizations elevate those, or let those elevate, where the end goal is not to have a darwinistic corpus of staff, only interested in their own survival.
I strongly disagree. If no one is happy with it, why is nobody changing the system?
Very often people say they aren't happy with a system, but secretly profit off of it, so they try to keep the system from changing. Maybe you have examples that don't follow this schema, but I've maybe seen a handful of such cases, whereas I've seen dozens where people were simply hiding their active support.
The post that responded to you does a good job of explaining why systems exist that are difficult to change even though nobody is happy with them. It even provides 10 examples, although some of them are admittedly bad.
I hope you'll forgive me that I'm not interested in reading a 14k word article posted without even a single character regarding why it's relevant or how it relates.
I felt like it's nicer to let you know why I'm not going to engage with the resource you shared, and I'd think that the vast majority of readers here would agree that it's unreasonable to share a 14k word essay with no further description.
But if you'd rather have me be direct: it's rude to wordlessly post a long link.
