If you had to define one characteristic of Google, it is "they just don't listen". I think it comes from a viewpoint of social status in which "high status people talk and low status people listen" and they think they can maintain high status if they only never listen. (Wouldn't want to become a low-status company like Microsoft that listens sometimes)
I'd contrast that to Meta which has been through various waves of scathing criticism and often comes across as responsive, for instance they've listened a lot to devs about weaknesses in the Quest platform.
Steve Yegge had an interesting perspective that Google as a company is incredibly arrogant, but is staffed with humble individuals. I can't see how that persists though, without their people getting cocky, or at least ignorant and out of touch. None of these scenarios ends with a responsive company that listens to stakeholders and acts in their best interests.
Systems of standardized evaluation inevitably get captured by the masters of self-presentation who, in our culture, are narcissists and psychopaths.
The person who is stuck at the bottom will be humble but as you go up systems like that filter for morally worse people. You might as well try summoning demons.
I'd contrast that to Meta which has been through various waves of scathing criticism and often comes across as responsive, for instance they've listened a lot to devs about weaknesses in the Quest platform.