That phrase "core values" brought to mind what Wikipedia says about their recent shift:
In 2003, IBM initiated a project to rewrite its company values. Using its Jam technology, the company hosted Internet-based online discussions on key business issues with 50,000 employees over 3 days. The discussions were analyzed by sophisticated text analysis software (eClassifier) to mine online comments for themes. As a result of the 2003 Jam, the company values were updated to reflect three modern business, marketplace and employee views: "Dedication to every client's success", "Innovation that matters—for our company and for the world", "Trust and personal responsibility in all relationships". In 2004, another Jam was conducted during which 52,000 employees exchanged best practices for 72 hours. They focused on finding actionable ideas to support implementation of the values previously identified.
Granted, the values they chose sound to me like empty corporate platitudes (what company isn't looking to please their customers, innovate, and act responsibly?) -- but the act of organization-wide soul-searching and following through with plans to put the new values into action suggests a moment of reinvention.
I read the New Yorker article; it make a good case for an outspoken advocate of the disruption paradigm being a charlatan, but I don't see the arguments of the OP hinging on the disruption paradigm of business evolution. I read it more as Mayer failing by replicating the outwardly obvious characteristics of Jobs's approach, without the insight necessary to do what Jobs actually would have done in the situation. But I think my interpretation read between the lines a bit; I found the history more interesting than the author's angle.