Ok. I'll take this one.

I think first and foremost, to each their own. If you don't like these policies, then don't work there. But don't go knocking them nearly universally. Start by asking the author "why" they chose certain policies or such detailed policies given the context.

Related, if anything is unhealthy, illegal, or skirting the law by paying lip service to the letter of the law, then certainly it should be called out. But I personally wouldn't put bureaucratic policies, such as the policy on attending conferences, in that category.

Second, putting to each their own aside, I have personally come across the "maybe works at a large company, but we are not a large company" argument many times and find it lacking. I have worked in very small, medium, and ginormous companies. I've worked in companies that were in the process of transitioning from small to medium. The ginormous company I worked at was, at the time, the worlds largest insurance company, and I was working in the investment division, which had one of the worlds largest AUM (Assets Under Management) numbers. So, investment company within insurance company that was an enormous publicly listed company, yeah, we had a few processes and policies in place. What I learned while there was how to leverag those to both get to the important work and to get more work done. I now feel that I was spoiled during that time, and often miss that "policy infrastructure" when finding myself in the middle of a cluster-f-uck at businesses without this in place (I currently do contract work so get to see a new environment every six months). And inevitably I propose a policy and inevitably I am told the company is not big enough to warrant such a policy and that my experience there doesn't translate to their company, and inevitably they ignore that prior to that experience I worked at our small family business, at a small credit union, and for a small county goverment office. And after the experience with the ginormous company, I have worked for multiple similar small to medium sized busiesses, and see the same issues cropping up again and again. But no, they are emphatic, they are a company to which processes and policies offer no value and I just don't understand their culture. Nevermind they hired me and several other contractors at exorbitant rates to come in and fix their mess; I should just shut up and fix it in the manner they made it.

Third, many tech companies are founded on the explicit premise that they will be high growth companies. When "In for a penny, in for a pound" holds true, then so does "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." I see that being relevant here.

Finally, software engineering is all about codifying applications into software. And yet, developers are often vehemently opposed to the same philosophy being applied to business (or god forbid we have to talk about documentation). Just as the computer is only going to do what it is explicitly told to do, when discordance occurs at a business, the lowest common denominator will be those things which have been made explicit. We all want to believe we are on the same page, but be honest, we often don't fully grasp the other person's position. Often, the problem with communication is the perception that it has occured, when in fact, it has not.

Explicit process and policies may be a chore and when done poorly they are harmful, but that is why one should iterate often and hold nothing sacred. They may seem bureaucratic but I'd rather be called a burocrat while I'm calmy navigating a crisis at work brought on by an external shock while my competitors are in-fighting and paralyzed by a dearth of solutions to problems caused not by the shock but by organizational problems cropping up because they didn't have basic processes and policies in place and so are having issues under circumstances of extraordinary stress.

But by all means, keep on keeping on. There are plenty of contract workers ready and willing clean up that mess, for a price.