Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 135 posts

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

#91

Post by mittermayr »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #56

First and foremost, massive sympathies on your partner's plight. It sucks, it's stressful, and has real world impacts. To your general question, I feel it's a variation of the "why do bad things happen to good people", and philosophically we (humans) do not have a satisfying answer that I've ever arrived at, especially if you're not religious :( To your more specific question, it seems that like myself and probably m…

Very insightful comment, thank you. I do agree and tend to critize the discounting of other people's intelligence when I read similar things (there's usually a lot more to it), but that one dude in this case really is a disaster, exceptionally so. Your argument stands however, and while I think you've written down from many years of experience looking back, it does make me sad a bit that this "assumption" is not what companies strive for, because I do believe it would ultimately be rewarded in success: "We assume it's our job to do a good job, and our bosses' job to notice and reward a good job".

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

#92

Post by mittermayr »

eudamoniac wrote: post #83

You clearly care way too much about what is just a job. 15 years at a big 5 you should be quite wealthy. A layoff is just a vacation. I say this not to be glib but because your anger here belies a way of thinking that is unhealthy and unproductive. Work at a big company is just a random coinflip each layoff cycle regardless of anything you can control. Everyone should internalize and prepare for this to the point tha…

We live reasonably frugaly, so this will be fine and pass by, you are absolutely right. Age does come into play here, so it's not "as easy" as it once was, things change dramatically the older you get. If she was 22, I couldn't be any less worried and I truly think those things are part of building a career, it provides for important life lessons and how to deal with work. It's just that in this particular case, one of many over the past few years in my circle of friends, the never-ending theme of incompetence surviving when disaster strikes kept nagging at me and I started wondering why corporations do not naturally filter for that.

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

#93

Post by garethsprice »

The higher up you go in the corporate pyramid, the more your ability to navigate politically becomes a distinct and valuable skillset beyond talent or hard work - or, more dangerously, competence.

"Power: Why Some People Have It — and Others Don’t" by Jeffrey Pfeffer is a good read on the topic.

Being ruthless can help if you are that sort of person, but it is more just a function of how large groups of humans work. You can learn to navigate politics better if you wish to keep ascending, but it is not something that comes naturally to a lot of people, especially technical types.

It can come as a shock when you realize that the world is not run by people who are smarter or more competent than you are - but that doesn't necessarily make them bad at leadership. Doubly hard realization when coupled with finding out that the corporate scythe can and will come for you at any time without regard to your past performance or dedication.

Sorry your partner got laid off. Having been in a similar place a number of times - it isn't punishment, neither is it personal or a reflection on your (her) self-worth or abilities, it is just the cold reality of business. Keep your resume fresh, don't drink too much of the corporate Kool Aid, and always take those vacation days.

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

#94

Post by zby »

mittermayr wrote: post #86
zby wrote: post #73

It is an interesting subject - but so much have been written about it in the past. I would like to read what are the new angles. And for the past discussions see: HACKER NEWS DISCUSSION LINKS THE GERVAIS PRINCIPLE * The Gervais Principle Main Submission (October 2009) https://ycombinator.com * The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to "The Office" (August 2024) https://ycombinator.com MORAL MAZES * Moral Maze…

Wow, thank you for that, must've been quite a bit of work to put that together and I feel sorry for not digging through the archives. I hope this brought up a few new thoughts, perhaps, I know it's mostly ramblings and us-against-the-ones-on-top banter, but here and there, I see and was hoping for some insights. I'll go through the list in a bit, thank you!

Honestly I asked in google (I remembered the main sources) - then I iterated with Gemini to format it well. But my first post in this thread was flagged - I don't know what was the reason but it is possible that it was for using AI, as it also contained some more narrative text from Gemini.

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

#96

Post by Nimitz14 »

Great question. I think these people are good at spinning narratives _and_ the people above are not doing the work they should be doing to check whether the narrative checks out: I think good leaders (and every manager below) should be doing inverse skip and skip-skip meetings often enough to have a good sense of whether what their reports are saying is accurate. But most dont

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

#97

Post by codingdave »

One of the side effects of the "up or out" business strategy is that by definition, almost nobody has to live with the long-term results of their work. If they did something that had a short-term benefit, they can walk away with a win, even if it becomes a dumpster fire a little bit later. (And even then, yay, another project to put out the fire - more revenue!) So the big consulting shops build a practice where short-term is the only term.

That is also why many people who land in the "out" route end up having the same level of disasters elsewhere in industry - they pile up years of experience running projects that hit short-term goals, make money, look good on paper, and even launch well... but have zero accountability as to whether they are still stable and maintainable a year later.

That doesn't mean everyone from such shops is a disaster. There are some good folk in those shops. But that is exactly why career success in consulting does not correlate with whether or not you leave disasters in your wake.

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

#98

Post by dapperdrake »

mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #12

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…

Also: DARVO.

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

#100

Post by dylan604 »

imthatsteve wrote: post #75
dylan604 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You fuck up, you move up" is how it's been explained to me.

The way i understand it hr usually requires a paper trail before you can fire someone but that paper trail requires the subject to break company policy to earn the reprimand that would make up that paper trail. If someone is just bad at their job and makes poor managerial decisions that isnt exactly a valid reason to fire them so its actually easier to promote them so at least they arent in your department, you can s…

Which is a truly unsane policy. How does moving someone out of a smaller group up in the org chart so they now have an even larger surface area to affect sound rational? Move them into the special projects group so they are isolated. Let them study the effect of changing the margin/padding by .5ems to see what happens, and then never implement the changes recommended. Allow them to test which shade of blue makes the users most happy, and then never implement the changes. If you're not going to eliminate dead weight, don't let them drag everyone else down with them.
Post reply on HN