Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why do corporate failures always seem to punish the wrong people?

news.ycombinator.com

21–30 of 135 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why do corporate failures always seem to punish the wrong people?

#21
post #9

Because corporations are autocratic. All power is top down. Make corporations democratic with bottom up power structures, and the opposite will happen. Leadership will face blame for everything, and the bottom rung will never.

Yeah but why does it always end up in such autocratic behavior? On paper, I'd naively argue, any team or organization, or even individual, who continues to actually deliver value for the company, shouldn't they get to have a say in where the ship could go to avoid sinking it?

Hierarchy is the default because it is so simple. Designing alternative structures for responsibility raises lots of unexpected complexity. A good example of this is the Benefit Corporation idea which is gaining support and polish over time, but still involves considerable legal challenges. Being answerable to stakeholders and employee owned is very unlike answering to stockholders who own everything.

Re: Ask HN: Why do corporate failures always seem to punish the wrong people?

#22

I've seen a fair share of personalities in middle/upper management. My hypothesis is that in large organizations, people that operate at that level often exhibit more survival skills that are ruthless than moral. A common characteristic I've seen is they manage "up" well and are often not good managers themselves. So if they control the narrative with their management, even when they screw up everything, its articula…

> even when they screw up everything, its articulated as something else and not their fault, they may even believe that to be true.

The reason this is so important, both in government and in private business, is that these people decide nothing, until you get to the very top. And the ones at the very top are terrified of actually making any decision. They're at the top and what they're currently doing obviously brought them there. A change? Seriously? They carry out decisions from above them. The reason they want people who deflect blame from the decisions is, yes, to protect themselves, but also to make sure the person they work for can protect themselves, after forcing the wrong decisions downwards.

Companies, and governments, hold on to ideas decades (and governments: centuries) after they've lost their usefulness. You want to get far in education? You find a way to explain why knowledge of Latin determines success in life in 2026, and you learn to make this argument without giving the slightest hint it's not your actual opinion, without insulting Latin teachers, and without insulting administrators.

The problem is, of course, that if you chose the sane option, that Latin is about as important in 2026 as the remaining 2 years in the career of the long-since-senile senior education minister are likely to be ... you will not have any further need to worry about managing up.

Re: Ask HN: Why do corporate failures always seem to punish the wrong people?

#23

I've seen a fair share of personalities in middle/upper management. My hypothesis is that in large organizations, people that operate at that level often exhibit more survival skills that are ruthless than moral. A common characteristic I've seen is they manage "up" well and are often not good managers themselves. So if they control the narrative with their management, even when they screw up everything, its articula…

Really makes you want to audit ALL communications of the most sociopathic people in your organization and ask an AI to construct the true narrative based on activity and communication logs. Even on any personal devices.

Although those slippery people will just begin to perform for the AI as well.

Re: Ask HN: Why do corporate failures always seem to punish the wrong people?

#24

I mean this sympathetically, but you and your partner seem to have an unhealthy relationship with work. Employment is a business transaction. You sell the company your time - it gives you money. That’s the deal. The company is not your family, your father or a secret ledger of who worked hardest. Think of it like buying groceries. You don’t expect the supermarket to love you because you’ve shopped there for 15 years.…

This is great take, I agree.

Re: Ask HN: Why do corporate failures always seem to punish the wrong people?

#25
The people who do good work are typically orthogonal to the people who spend all their time bragging about what they did and taking credit for other people's work, and blaming other people for their mistakes - and the squeakiest wheels get the grease.

Re: Ask HN: Why do corporate failures always seem to punish the wrong people?

#26
post #9

Because corporations are autocratic. All power is top down. Make corporations democratic with bottom up power structures, and the opposite will happen. Leadership will face blame for everything, and the bottom rung will never.

Yeah but why does it always end up in such autocratic behavior? On paper, I'd naively argue, any team or organization, or even individual, who continues to actually deliver value for the company, shouldn't they get to have a say in where the ship could go to avoid sinking it?

Normalization of deviance, soft power, and the fact that managing up and managing down are not the same skillset.

Delegating authority is a velocity/democracy tradeoff. Polling 100k people about where to get lunch doesn't work.

So over time, any time someone does something that might be seen as unjust, if it's within the error bars for "unusual but not a hard line", shifts the line more and more, especially if the people in question are good at controlling what the people above them hear, or calling in favors to shield themselves, until you wind up with sentences like "well of course they got fired, they were working on $THAT_PROJECT, and everyone knows $MANAGER hates $THAT_PROJECT".

Re: Ask HN: Why do corporate failures always seem to punish the wrong people?

#27
If an army general orders a disastrous assault that completely fails, they might get demoted or relieved of command. The infantry that were ordered to charge the machine guns pay a much higher price (as do the junior officers that lead the charge). Hell, perhaps nowerdays they'll have a 'blameless postmortem' to 'learn lessons' and there won't even be a demotion.

Us folks who work for a living aren't charging any machine guns, thankfully - but if my boss's boss's boss can't get our division to make a profit the entire division is at risk, no matter how good my area of the division may be.

Or hell, maybe nobody in my 'chain of command' made any mistakes at all. We could be the world's greatest manufacturer of airplane seats - but if the plane they're put into has a few crashes, and orders dry up, there's no money to pay my wages.

Is it just? No - it's just the nature of work.

Re: Ask HN: Why do corporate failures always seem to punish the wrong people?

#28
post #9

Because corporations are autocratic. All power is top down. Make corporations democratic with bottom up power structures, and the opposite will happen. Leadership will face blame for everything, and the bottom rung will never.

Point me to a democracy where the failing leadership actually bears the consequences of the blame they face though.

Re: Ask HN: Why do corporate failures always seem to punish the wrong people?

#29
If you compare with work that’s contracted out, it’s quite similar. When a company does poorly, it will cut its budgets and spend less, so its suppliers lose business. Whether or not anyone at the company takes the blame for it is a separate issue.

Re: Ask HN: Why do corporate failures always seem to punish the wrong people?

#30
here is the system.

break everything up, "official" lines of comunication, phone, email, that are essentialy black holes, then a maze of second, third,fourth level worklings who always refer you to someone else, who may respond with company and title in a voice call from a private number, reluctantly giving a first name. In person meetings with the brass that are glad handing and zero information, second level meetings where YOU sign contracts giving them vague authority and power. Further in person meeting with underlings who are very agressive and commit to nothing. Fucking shark tanks, right, and you are everybodys, chum. But if need be they will quickly turn on there own and put someone on the hook. There is more, a whole lot more, but non of this is new, or any particular mystery, just exceptionaly out of controll right now.

Post reply on HN