Unless I'm terribly confused, we spend a lot of time on this topic, but the companies that exhibit this behavior seem to be just fine, if not wildly successful.
Purely based on my experience, I believe much of what is described cannot exist in large (100±) organisations. Fundamentally, large organisations need decision making structures, and become more "command and control" in order to make those structures work.
Smaller organisations can more quickly assess problems/opportunities and collaborate on responses in a more inclusive way.
Back to how you define success. Profit? Hypergrowth? Investment? Shares? Salary? Staff churn? Mental health? Satisfaction?
I run small (4-20) person development teams, as a project/delivery manager or senior manager, and I always prioritise mental health, well being and support for every team member. I always get feedback that team members would like every manager to do the same, and that they are happier on my team.
I do this because having come from a system/development background myself, I've seen the negative effects that bad management has. My own mental health, that of others, and losing colleagues to suicide (not just because of work, but work had been a factor) led me to take a protective and idealistic stance towards supporting development teams and project members.
The flip side of taking this approach is the very difficult conversations and stress I have to deal with in dealing with clients, project sponsors or CxOs. That's my choice. Many of the roles that commission software development teams have no idea how to work with or manage them.