Large tech companies have more than one "culture" which various across departments and projects. When I found myself stuck in an unhealthy project I would look for opportunities to transfer within. Usually I was able to find a team that suited my interests and way of working.
In my case my friends blew off what I was saying until I was leaving, and then for whatever reason when I was in the process started actually listening to what I had been telling them for the past several years. "Wait... what??? You mean they do X, Y, Z? WTF?" It didn't matter that mutual friends had left, that they had lost 1/3 of their employees in the past 3-4 years, that 90% of the people in my division had left, that they had surveys (buried in diversity reviews) showing that 50-60% of the remaining people were seriously thinking of leaving. The secret meetings, the lawsuits, you name it. It was always the same response from my friends: "This is normal company politics everywhere." But it wasn't.
What I wished is that I had been mentored more on how to leave to a different organization (I sort of left the field), with an explanation for why. But when you hear "this is the same politics everywhere" you kind of think "ok this is what it's like everywhere."
The thing is, sometimes it's not the same everywhere. There are good places to work and bad places to work, and places that are good for some people and bad for others.
If it is bad everywhere (cf. Musk's complaints about "MBA-ization" of America), then society needs to have a serious reflection on itself (maybe that's the signal in the noise of US politics lately?).
FWIW, my experience is consistent with your bit about "as long as you have a positive career path there". I think at some level that's what prompted me to leave -- I got the sense that the reasons why some people were favored and others in the institution were not was all about weird purely personal factors, like who goes to who's wedding etc. (Yes, I believe social factors are important, that it's important to be cordial and genuinely friendly and positive and empathetic... but there's a point where all of that normal "being a good person and colleague" doesn't cut it anymore, and might actually be a detriment).
Around Series B is when the bureaucratic crap starts piling up. And before Series A there's just not enough money.
Status at stake, yes. Power? Power over what? Another “microservice”? And money, an extra 50% bonus maybe? That’s not “money”. Employees are getting rich absolutely nowhere. When real money is at stake you’d know. People get serious, quick.
I have a hypothesis that post-industrial-era management-as-a-profession is going to become such a disadvantage that 30 person companies with 28 ICs and 2 exec/founders are going to become the norm, upsetting companies many times their size.
Already half of white collar jobs could be automated with two weeks dev effort (per role). That assertion is based on hundreds of conversations with “business” people at my clients. You’d sadly not be surprised how many people forward emails or update spreadsheets for a living.
I think the solution is to bite the bullet until you can work in a smaller company (either by accepting less money or by starting your own)
My suggestion is to find a company where you can accept and work within that company's dysfunction, and stay put as long as you have a positive career path there. Every company is dysfunctional in some way, from small startups to large public corporations. As long as there are people involved there is going to be some form dysfunction and politics.
This is actually why I didn't mind he transition from IC to management, because even though I code less, I have the ability to influence the decision making process and improve day-to-day for everybody who reports to me.