Which one would you choose and what would you do? (Other than kick out anyone who uses pronouns). Me personally I'm torn between two:
Sony: not so much for PlayStation (I'd just shut down and fire everyone at California HQ and remove all censorship, make 18+ material require a password to look at) but anime access, cutting off any American influence there and getting better rates for studios would be in the best interest.
Bethesda: would fire Todd Howard then force them to go to Id and get a better game engine.
You have to:
That last part kills me a bit, but it's an imperative against the smart Leftists and criminals.
OUR Leftists don't know how to make things, but Leftists, even their Useful Idiots, absolutely have in the past. We're dealing with, effectively, Late Stage Leftism. As such, they have to occupy, colonize, steal, and vandalize anything they see as valuable, but Leftists in the past were very dedicated in building institutions that would generate their revolution.
Meritocracy, like Liberalism itself, is only possible in a society that is already morally ordered by some means. Whether it is organic or imposed, an already existent moral order is necessary.
We are dealing with institutions that are already aligned with power-mongering as their institutional value, run by resentment-mongers.
This is why, fundamentally, it is easier to just let all of these institutions fail and die, rather than seize them and change them. And if you do seize them, holy shit do you need to be forceful when you do. Don't be afraid to fire 50% of the institution on the day you walk in the door. You have to solve these problems, not with a hammer, nor a scalpel, but a god damned scythe.
It sucks, but once it becomes clear to the Leftists who remain that you aren't giving them a guarantee of money, power, or success, they will voluntarily deport themselves to a new hunting ground, and you'll be able to do the necessary work after they've left and don't show any resistance. In fact, some Useful Idiots are so seduced by power, you may find the bureaucrats turning to your side, simply because you are winning. When dealing with power-mongers, there is no greater virtue than being in charge.
I don't think this is as bad as you suggest; I think it's just very hard. If someone does not align with an organization's values and is promoted upward, they will eventually lead the organization off mission.
Say that you lead a group whose goal is to teach financial and economic literacy to teenagers, and you are looking to hire a teacher. You have two choices: a Nobel prize winning economist who is an excellent communicator and a bit of a Marxist, or some shlep who read Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics" and understood only most of it. Which do you hire and promote? The economist is far more meritorious. But the shlep will do his job and ultimately further improve on the financial and economic literacy of your students.
Note I can only claim that last bit BECAUSE we reject Marxist ideas as valid. That is the hard part: picking your dogmas. Dogma is not the dirty word progressives suggest.
To be honest, it's dangerous one way or another.
If you only promote by value, you will be like the Left and lose merit.
If you only promote by merit, you will be subverted by the rare intelligent Leftist.
You have to have a delicate system of trust: meritocrats should be promoted to just under the level of incompetence and paid well. But culture and leadership must be built by those who espouse good culture and leadership.