It's been suggested in the past I believe and I'd argue that to an extent, it's a very bad idea precisely because it shields a staff member from votes in either way.
While some parts of the company look at the network in terms of 'millions' of users, much of the smooth running of the network does tend to rely on personal trust. Historically the company had staff at every level, interacting with the community via meta sites and other means. I'd had arguments with the then CEO/founder over content on my own site, and we worked out mutually beneficial compromises.
Creating a company/'bot' account to shield staff is harmful because while it does 'protect' them from unpopular decisions of the company, it also prevents many meaningful, direct interactions.
It also in some cases prevents personal responsibility for specific actions, and encourages a certain distance from the company and community, which considering SE's culture and history, would be harmful. We're strongest working together, though often the company seems to insist on its own way.
Before the last layoffs, I was lobbying very hard for community hires for the community team and elsewhere. I wasn't particularly successful, and the pool of willing candidates was more of a puddle. While this was unsuccessful, my secondary goal was to encourage closer, direct interactions with the community from staff. I'd say that this is an important reason why we need people posting.
These direct interactions, even ones that seem negative build trust and as long as the staff member follows up increases the respect people have for them, which in turn makes it easier to do their job.
Writing for meta is also a bit of an acquired skill. SE used to hire for it, and a good community manager needs it, as does anyone who works directly with the communities. Poorly received posts, as harsh as it sounds can be a learning experience company wide, and sometimes for the person.
To be able to handle criticism constructively and to use the platform effectively allows one to do community work better. It builds accountability and trust, and there's a reason people like Shog and Jeff are well loved and have had an impact long after they left the company. Some of these skills are not really transferable from elsewhere.
Where we can't get people with certain pre-existing skills in working with these communities, direct interactions as you build up the respect people have for you, and trust over time, enabling them to better use the skills they came in with. In a sense you exercise the muscles that help you carry your work, and the community's needs.
There's a small pool of folks who are very good at this within the company and they're effective properly supported by the company in communicating with us. I'd even argue that they're undervalued. Telling them they can't do things in their own name seems a little insulting.
A common company account - while admittedly acting like training wheels, prevents all this. It prevents a staff member from building their reputation with the community, and where the job involves dealing with the community, throws a veil over the staff member stopping them from doing so.
It just doesn't fit how we do things, and IMO does more harm than good.
