On May 1st, 2023, Meta, the parent company of social media giant Facebook, was thrown into turmoil as several high-ranking executives resigned from their positions, including Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg and Chief Financial Officer David Wehner. This crisis, however, did not emerge overnight. Meta’s troubles have been brewing for some time, and Mark Zuckerberg, the company’s founder and CEO, has been at the center of much of the controversy.

The culture crisis at Meta has been building for years, with allegations of discrimination and harassment against women and people of color. This is not a new issue for the company, which has faced numerous controversies over the years, including the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the spread of fake news and hate speech, and concerns over user privacy. However, the recent departures of high-profile executives highlight the depth and severity of the problems at the company.

Many observers attribute the company’s culture crisis to Zuckerberg’s leadership style, which has been characterized as authoritarian, insular, and lacking in empathy. Zuckerberg has long been known for his reluctance to engage with critics or to take responsibility for the problems that have arisen under his watch.

This approach was on full display in the aftermath of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which the data of millions of Facebook users was harvested without their consent and used to influence the 2016 US presidential election. Zuckerberg initially downplayed the seriousness of the issue and failed to take decisive action, leading to a public outcry and calls for regulation of the company.

The Cambridge Analytica scandal was just one of many controversies that have dogged the company over the years. Meta has been accused of facilitating the spread of fake news and hate speech, failing to adequately protect user privacy, and creating an addictive platform that harms mental health and social cohesion.

Throughout these controversies, Zuckerberg has maintained his tight grip on the company’s leadership, resisting calls for more transparency, accountability, and reform. Critics have argued that Zuckerberg’s approach is fueled by a desire for control and a reluctance to cede power, even when it is in the best interests of the company and its users.

This insularity and lack of empathy have also manifested in the company’s workplace culture, where employees have spoken out about discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Many employees have described a toxic work environment, in which concerns are dismissed or ignored and dissent is not tolerated.

Zuckerberg has acknowledged the problems at the company and has promised to do better. He has pledged to invest in content moderation and user safety, to take a more proactive approach to preventing the spread of misinformation and hate speech, and to create a more inclusive workplace culture.

However, critics argue that these promises are too little, too late. They point to the ongoing controversies and the recent departures of high-profile executives as evidence that the company’s problems are deep-seated and systemic.

To address these issues, Meta will need to take a more radical approach to leadership and culture. This will require a willingness to engage with critics and to listen to the concerns of users and employees. It will also require a willingness to rethink the company’s business model and to prioritize user safety and privacy over profits.

Ultimately, the fate of Meta will depend on its ability to adapt to a changing social and political landscape, and to address the concerns of its users and employees. If the company can do this, it may be able to regain the trust and support of the public. If not, it may be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past, and to continue to struggle with the fallout from its own meltdowns.