[civilized]

The article says that being an effective contributor is more about bringing a fresh perspective to the table, rather than making leadership comfortable. It also says that Anand was ultimately hired and was effective in the role.

It's sad when "read the room" and "soft skills" are equated to agreeableness and making management comfortable. A company that thinks this way has only one real brain, the one in the head of the leader. Everyone else's job is to agree with that brain, not use their own brains to question it. If the leader happens to be a world-historical genius, this might work, but that's not true in most cases, so such a dictatorial structure doesn't seem likely to be the foundation of a successful company.

[civilized]

And actually, there's an even more devastating problem with being a dictator who surrounds themselves with yes-folk. Dictators don't like information that contradicts their perspective, and the yes-folk learn that. So eventually the dictator is only getting information that confirms what they think, and the org becomes incapable of adaptation.