Maybe. Maybe not. Given the human material (yes I know a dehumanizing formulation, but that's what Corporate does) it seems it's better not to step on anybody's toes except if it's abundantly clear that the person doesn't have a voice in things, but even then it's risky. Corporate is self-selecting: companies that don't generate profit die off sooner or later. Therefore we can conclude (if a bit shakily) from the norm in Corporate not to insult anybody that internal strife has been very damaging and therefore that Corporate self-selects in an evolutionary manner to avoid anything that leads to internal strife.
I wouldn't say it has a good function on its own, but rather it's a mitigation strategy. People's fragile egos are a fact and this is not going to change anytime soon. So if you want to have a big organization, eventually you'll need to accommodate those who can't tolerate anything even remotely offending. Only organizations that aren't focused on growth can afford having a personality.
> eventually you'll need to accommodate those who can't tolerate anything even remotely offending.
Nah, I don't want these people in my company. Speaking specifically, to be clear, of people who can't tolerate polite, precise correction. If I can't find enough reasonable people to grow, then that's fine. But honestly I think there are fewer of those people than you might think, given the right environment where (among other psychological safety factors) being proven wrong is fine and normal and genuinely does not require a counter attack.
I know. I said critical function for a reason. If you can remove it, it's not critical.
The point is, "but evolution" is a weak argument to justify any particular feature of an entity facing selection pressure. The laryngeal nerve detour would have been a better example but I wanted to stay accessible.
