> she was unfit for the role because she was unable to navigate (manipulate) this situation. It sounds like the obverse of this may be true: the roel was unfit

> she was unfit for the role because she was unable to navigate (manipulate) this situation. It sounds like the obverse of this may be true: the roel was unfit for her because it did not allow her sufficient choice in how to manage the situation. A brand manager for a major brand should be able to influence what policies the brand takes a position on and what policies it does not. It sounds like that has been the case to this point, but in this case one of two things happened: either the latitude that she was given in the position was curtailed, or it was the first time where her personal beliefs diverged from the positions of the rest of the company. In the interest of exposing my own biases, I stopped financially supporting Levi’s in 2018 after their CEO publicly came out in support of additional, stricter gun laws: https://fortune.com/2018/09/04/levi-strauss-gun-violence-parkland/ https://fortune.com/2018/09/04/levi-strauss-gun-violence-par...