The article seems like it might be biased and pushing a narrative. It might not be, and I am not dismissing the sources or their sincerity. But a few things see

The article seems like it might be biased and pushing a narrative. It might not be, and I am not dismissing the sources or their sincerity. But a few things seem a bit off to me. Bajaria is brought in to bring fresh eyes and a new approval chain to the process as part of a strategic direction. It's just asserted this was the wrong thing to do, and the anti-Bajaria sources here clearly met her with hostility from the start: "Everybody thought it was a terrible thing Ted did, allowing one team to greenlight something that another team had passed on." and "And Ted loved that stupid phrase, ‘There are multiple paths to yes.’" Why? Why was it a bad thing to have different groups looking at shows with a different eye? For a corporation and workforce which allegedly pride themselves on diversity this seems strange to me. They go through a bunch of examples of shows that were dismissed by Holland which Bajaria picked up, but list hits, and credit her with other "megahits". Seems like the diversity of opinion and skill paid off in those cases at least. They're also dismissive and making seemingly arbitrary statements to support that: "By then, Holland was to oversee 80 shows on the service while Bajaria was responsible for 60. “Who can make 140 shows a year?” asks one creative. “That’s insane." Why is 80 shows by one team okay but another 60 by another team insane? Maybe they're just talking absolute numbers, but the article very clearly ties it to the same paragraph where it introduces Bajaria. Given the hostility and dismissiveness of the original group, I could completely understand a bit of return from the new group. Now what I think is equally likely to have happened is that the new group's arrival put noises out of joint because it threatened the existing power structure, and things deteriorated from there. Now that is always to be expected to some degree in a situation like this so likely the CEO should have managed it better. But maybe it was largely caused by assholes in the Holland camp. Or maybe by those in the Bajaria camp. Or maybe none of it's really a problem and Netflix hasn't got dramatically worse, they're just hitting limits of growth and facing increasing competition, and their stock crash is just a good excuse for disgruntled people to air their grievances.