The problem is that many of her "signs of ethical meltdown" are merely signs of success. In a fraudulent company, or a company convicted of ethical breaches, a "pressure to maintain numbers" is damning. But for a successful company, like Amazon, it's a lauded corporate value: "Day One culture".
When a corporation silences whistleblowers, that's a "culture of silence", and it's often highlighted in the press if and when the company gets into trouble for ethical breaches. But the flip side, a whistleblowing system that is so open it becomes a method for people to settle petty office political scores is equally dangerous for the company. Many companies have systems for "anytime feedback" in place, where an employee can file (theoretically) anonymous feedback about anyone else, including bosses or executives. It's also well known that if you get anytime feedback against you, it's considered a black mark on your record. As a result, anytime feedback becomes a vector for vendettas, as people who feel that they've been wronged by a higher-up file anytime feedback against them, and the higher-up has to deal with proving that their actions were actually completely aboveboard. This leads to enormous pressure on HR to deanonymize the "anonymous" feedback, which then leads directly back into the situation that Marianne Jennings characterizes as a "culture of fear".
A larger-than-life CEO is a danger sign when he or she engages in short-term behavior or fraud (like Jack Welch or Elizabeth Holmes, respectively). But in other cases, a larger-than-life CEO serves as an important insulator between his or her company and pressures from rivals and shareholders. Amazon lost money for almost a full decade before it started turning huge profits. Could it have done that without Jeff Bezos in charge? Could Microsoft have successfully outmaneuvered IBM if Bill Gates hadn't been CEO? A Meta without Mark Zuckerberg doesn't acquire Instagram, and thus gets permanently stunted when social media moves to mobile platforms. And of course, there's the best example of all: Steve Jobs. Without his return, Apple goes the way of Commodore, Tandy, and so many other microcomputer manufacturers crushed by WinTel juggernaut. There are certainly many examples of larger-than-life CEOs engaging in malfeasance. But I would argue that there are many more examples of companies that have been saved by their larger-than-life executives.
Weak boards are the consequence of having a larger-than-life CEO. A highly charismatic, dynamic CEO is not the sort of person who will tolerate having to explain him or herself to a nagging board of directors. Indeed, Silicon Valley founders often set up shareholding structures that give them effective control over the company, regardless of what the board says. A great example of this is with Meta, where Mark Zuckerberg controls a majority of the voting rights, and, as a result he can effectively fire his board. Similarly, Larry Page and Sergey Brin have large holdings of special "Class B" stock in Alphabet that isn't publicly traded and gives them enhanced voting rights.
Companies do fail because they incorrectly believe that they are more innovative than their rivals. Equally, companies often succeed by correctly believing that they are more innovative than their rivals. If Jeff Bezos hadn't thought that Amazon was the most innovative retailer in the world, Amazon would still be a website for buying books. He wouldn't have thought to utilize Amazon's technology to create AWS, instantly making Amazon the market leader in a new industry, with profit margins fat enough to ensure that Amazon (the retailer) could operate on the slimmest of margins while it gained market dominance. Bill Gates knew that Microsoft could build a better operating system on its own than it could in partnership with IBM, so in addition to the OS/2 project, he also spun up the project that would eventually become Microsoft Windows. When the Windows turned out to be more successful, Gates had no qualms about kicking IBM to the curb and licensing Windows to the PC clone manufacturers on his own. Would he have been able to pull this off without the almost hubristic belief that his little software house could challenge the greatest computer manufacturer in the world?
There is no substitute for virtue. A virtuous CEO has enormous self-confidence. He or she has total belief in his or her company. However, if that belief is unfounded, they must have the ability to take their lumps and declare bankruptcy. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to determine if someone will act in a virtuous manner until and unless they're placed in a situation that requires it. In the meanwhile, we have management consultants and academics like Marianne Jennings attempting to boil virtue down into a set of procedures and practices, without taking the time to understand that many more companies have become successful by ignoring their precepts than by following them.