In practice 99% of large enterprise employees must “do as they’re told” and their only available alternative option is to quit.
I’ve never heard of any org where there is any kind of bottom-to-top accountability and if such a thing was promised I would be immediately suspicious that it’s just a gimmick intended to even further exploit the naive.
I don't see this as a bug, it's a forced feature of a program that needs some other parts fixed.
The problem isn't local to any organization, it's lack of functional competition and that's due to systemic reasons which are beyond the reach of CBC, bottom-up or internal anything.
In reality, I see CBC being deployed by leadership (i.e., by leaders, top-down) as a way of holding subordinates accountable more objectively. As a means of enabling meritocracy. As a signaling device to show credibility and fairness. As a management system that reduces politics and favoritism by forcing clarity. And as a cultural foundation that says: what matters here is outcomes, not optics (or theater).
It just so happens to apply equally to leadership also, because every leader is also a subordinate to someone, whether it’s a board, investors, customers, or the market itself. Most leaders aren't a god-emperor.