Late to the party, but I strongly agree with your comments in this thread, based on similar experience in a corporate environment. The weird paradox in this go

Late to the party, but I strongly agree with your comments in this thread, based on similar experience in a corporate environment. The weird paradox in this governance model is why we see so much fluff around the actual autocracy that - at the end of the day - is what matters. Why pay for HR, townhall events etc, etc, if in the end it doesn't matter? I think the obvious reason is - ironically - making accountability optional, through selective enforcement. If you have an arbitrary and emotionally based strict set of rules, you can freely accuse practically anyone for breaking it, since the owners have last say anyway. As such, you can say "sorry, we had to let Tim go, because he violated policy" - and abracadabra, nobody is personally accountable. It's the woke equivalent of a firing squad. In fact, if a process is not universal, but selective, it is just a power tool. And what's more attractive than a power tool? Simply throw process on people you dislike, and let the people you like through. That's not to say there's some calculated malicious intent behind this. There are tons of people who genuinely think these systems are good and serve them, or people less privileged than them.