You say sorry, but it doesn't really come off very apologetic to be honest. Your initial reaction is very suspicious in itself. Why so emotional over what I said? You also presume a lot about me and my career choices and your assertions also teeter on some strong emotions, very odd. What's your personal stake in this that's got you so amped? A hidden insecurity perhaps? Clearly I hit a nerve here.

I've worked in big tech for a combined total of 6 years. Several of the other companies are Fortune 500 members. I've also worked at mid-size and small companies across mortgage, healthcare, fin-tech, point of sale, HR/payroll, and more. I surmise that you would categorize most of these as "intelligent" companies, which negates your argument about this being a "me" problem. Let's take Intel - where I worked for 3 years - as an example. Some would consider this an "intelligent company". I was there when Brian Krzanich took over for Paul Otellini. I think you will have a very easy time finding huge swaths of people/employees that consider Krzanich's leadership decisions to be very poor. In fact over the last few months, you'll find threads here on HN that directly pin the decline of Intel on his decision making.

We can argue the semantics of "intelligent" all day and make excuses for why leaders make irrational choices, but my point still stands. I don't think this is a "me" problem for one simple reason: If you take me out of the equation, the issue still exists.