Nearly every tech job I've had there was the potential to do very little to nothing and stay employed.
What I've gathered from her quotes in the Fortune article is that this person failed to take advantage of her opportunity to be paid highly with total autonomy while surrounded by Smart People.
It's long been an established practice to hire talented engineers and let them make interesting things. Give them as much autonomy as you can afford to. If they're smart and driven they'll produce value.
Otherwise you're herding cats to do things you may not even understand nearly as well as the supposed geniuses you've hired. It's not a good use of your time and you'll probably fail at it.
Just look at the history of UNIX and Plan9 FFS. These guys were messing around with what interested them! Management didn't know what to tell them to work on... and we're all better for it with these wonderful innovations.
This former Meta staffer just put a big fat DO NOT HIRE sign on her forehead as far as I'm concerned.
Why? For starters, some companies are rich, and they can afford to waste a lot of money. Think of all of those interviews you've been on that waste your time and that of the interview loop, even though it's clear that they have never intended to hire. Or maybe just 1 in 500. (One company I was hired at boasted to me about the "500". Ugh.)
Or, at least in the trading world, things can be very secretive. You might have the skills to contribute, but no one will even talk to you, for fear that you'll steal the secret sauce.
Mostly it's just simple managerial incompetence.
The employer/employee match is sort of like a key and lock. In order for it to work, _all_ of the pins have to align. It's not enough to be a skilled, team-player, etc., employee. Your employer also has to bring several things to the table. Sometimes they just don't.
... if we wanted to ...