Have you read the Gervais Principle? => https://ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-t...
nice share <3
Ask HN: Why do corporate failures always seem to punish the wrong people?
101–110 of 135 posts
Re: Ask HN: Why do corporate failures always seem to punish the wrong people?
#102> how do these people consistently survive their self-inflicted disasters? Because they don't believe the disasters were inflicted by them. The other aspect is managing the manager. This comes in form of delivering something what their manager needs. So, their manager has a goal of reducing costs they will act as a yes-man despite their abilities. They might come up with ridiculous ideas and convince their managers t…
> Because they don't believe the disasters were inflicted by them.
It's not quite clear how "they" and "them" are related but I see only two options:
1. Bad managers believe what's convenient for them in order avoid dying from shame - but this is a truism and it has nothing to do with the original question.
2. The managers of bad managers believe that the managers below them can do no wrong - but this is like calling the entire management hierarchy a bunch of incompetents, because believing has little to do with rational analysis and evaluation of important decisions, it doesn't work as an answer to the original question: "Why is there no accountability from certain level up?".
> The other aspect is managing the manager.
That aspect, and its entire paragraph, are a rather confusing reformulation of the original question.
> If and when it fails the issue isn't because the idea was bad it was because circumstances.
The end result of the confusion is a blanket excuse to any and all management failures: "it's the circumstances". The same can applied to everyone and everywhere which could only lead to a world more ridiculous than "Idiocracy".
> but for management, company and even shareholders the outcome matters.
I'm not sure what this is saying, the substance of the original question is why the outcome doesn't matter for the above group? And you already explained that it doesn't matter because "it's the circumstances"... I can't square that circle.
Re: Ask HN: Why do corporate failures always seem to punish the wrong people?
#103It 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…
read the title and instantly ctrl+f'd Moral Mazes
Re: Ask HN: Why do corporate failures always seem to punish the wrong people?
#104There's a fallacy that we all fall into: We think that our job is about turning the crank, and that the best crank turners will stay around the longest. It's not: I've been involved in quite a few projects that get abandoned, (or otherwise miss their target) for one reason or another. There's a few things that you (or your partner) can do to protect yourself. Most important: Make sure that your role (as an engineer)…
All good advice, I do disagree with one statement, however, mainly because I've seen this getting violated many times now: > "Make sure that your role (as an engineer) in your company is in the most critical part of the company as you can handle." The main problem here is how much the organization wants to think it can continue without those crucial parts, I've seen wild things go down in this regard, and I think we'…
The trick is to align with how corporate leadership defines "crucial" and not the way a "crank turner" defines it.
A crank turner thinks having a solid platform to stand on, a long crank arm and good lubrication is crucial. Because those things ARE crucial to crank turning.
Corporate management is looking at the machine the crank is attached to and thinking if that machine is going to produce the company's next quarter of growth.
The machine you crank could even be very profitable right now, but it's not where the company is going. Here's an easy to follow example from a smallish business:
Re: Ask HN: Why do corporate failures always seem to punish the wrong people?
#105Corporate world is tribal, if not feudal. Reason why the Nobles can do nothing wrong by default, and the Villagers are always the villan. If I may have a suggestion, Buckminster Fuller - Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth is a short and great perspective over these dynamics.
> Corporate world is tribal, if not feudal.
And, more importantly, the corporate world is a dependent variable.
Re: Ask HN: Why do corporate failures always seem to punish the wrong people?
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
All good advice, I do disagree with one statement, however, mainly because I've seen this getting violated many times now: > "Make sure that your role (as an engineer) in your company is in the most critical part of the company as you can handle." The main problem here is how much the organization wants to think it can continue without those crucial parts, I've seen wild things go down in this regard, and I think we'…
The trick is to align with how corporate leadership defines "crucial" and not the way a "crank turner" defines it. A crank turner thinks having a solid platform to stand on, a long crank arm and good lubrication is crucial. Because those things ARE crucial to crank turning. Corporate management is looking at the machine the crank is attached to and thinking if that machine is going to produce the company's next quart…
Yes, you're both right.
mittermayr: My other points explain why just being in the most critical role isn't a guarantee. I also pointed out that "foolish management can still goof and let you go."
That being said:
> and much to my surprise, how often the org can actually survive through such disaster cuts regardless, even though they'll end up at a worse place than they were at before, but the simple act of surviving it -- at that point -- is enough of a success to continue onwards.
mittermayr: Either this is foolish management, or you're misinterpreting the situation. If the company believes that, in the end, it's successful, then how can you argue that the company isn't? Can you provide an example? Otherwise, you might be misinterpreting the situation, and it's what pbronez says is "The machine you crank could even be very profitable right now, but it's not where the company is going."
Re: Ask HN: Why do corporate failures always seem to punish the wrong people?
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
All good advice, I do disagree with one statement, however, mainly because I've seen this getting violated many times now: > "Make sure that your role (as an engineer) in your company is in the most critical part of the company as you can handle." The main problem here is how much the organization wants to think it can continue without those crucial parts, I've seen wild things go down in this regard, and I think we'…
The trick is to align with how corporate leadership defines "crucial" and not the way a "crank turner" defines it. A crank turner thinks having a solid platform to stand on, a long crank arm and good lubrication is crucial. Because those things ARE crucial to crank turning. Corporate management is looking at the machine the crank is attached to and thinking if that machine is going to produce the company's next quart…
Interesting video, but it doesn't really apply to this discussion. The author stated that he kept everyone employed through the transition. He saw an area to grow his business into, and transitioned the Etsy staff to it. (As opposed to laying them off.)
One thing I don't understand is why he didn't sell the Etsy part of his business.
Re: Ask HN: Why do corporate failures always seem to punish the wrong people?
#108This is a more general question, which is "Why don't people take accountability for their actions?" Because it's hard work and it's easier to let someone else bear the costs.
The question is actually how do people get away with avoiding accountability for their actions?
Re: Ask HN: Why do corporate failures always seem to punish the wrong people?
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 broug…
And eventually, unless protected by a monopoly/legislation protection, these orgs get out-competed. Which is why they also seem to focus so much on protecting their position. It explains a lot, frankly.
Yep, even at the top (I think) people essentially reason: "Doing X is why customers/voters/... brought me to the top. So we're going to do X dammit", and they feel they're also not deciding anything.
People gamble with small companies and upstart political parties. Large companies and big parties don't gamble. Would you?
Re: Ask HN: Why do corporate failures always seem to punish the wrong people?
#110It 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…
can you fix the links? they all point to YC