Ask HN: Why do corporate failures always seem to punish the wrong people? • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by pbronez » Tue, Aug 25, 2026, 10:37 PM UTC

gwbas1c wrote: post #107

pbronez wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah no layoffs in that example. The connection is that it's very easy for the carpenters to see the Etsy business as "crucial," but the CEO decided to kill that entire line of business. From an individual career perspective, you could have mis-identified this and focused on being the guy who manages the Etsy storefront.

Selling the Etsy side of things is an interesting idea. I wonder how you could do that without also selling off the tools and things you need for the SKUs you want to keep. I don't think they had distinct brands, for example.

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

#132

Post by ccarcaci » Fri, Aug 28, 2026, 2:36 PM UTC

It's about budgeting and... well... resources (that are humans).

There's a mistake, firing the responsible for the mistake means blaming. It's fine to do a post-mortem, understand the cause, and the one responsible did it's homeworks.

But then, as a separate issue, there's the budget. To save the budget, companies shrink resources (AKA human beings).

No more, no less, no soul.

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

#133

Post by folkrav » Sat, Aug 29, 2026, 1:57 PM UTC

goatlover wrote: post #89

folkrav wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They get voted out.

Everybody eventually does get voted out in a democracy, including those who have done well. It's not a consequence but a natural process of the system.

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

#134

Post by jimmytehbanana » Sat, Aug 29, 2026, 4:22 PM UTC

rstuart4133 wrote: post #116

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…

This is just Pournelle’s iron law isn't it? https://executivecoachinglondon.com/career-development/pourn...

Huh. First I’ve heard of this. Turns out I’ve been carving out autonomous teams for years and it’s always been successful. So much so, that when I do look at other teams I find myself questioning why they are struggling so much. Now I know why!

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

#135

Post by mattbrewsbytes » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 1:23 PM UTC

ThatGuysGood wrote: post #120

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…

Interesting to hear managing up as an overall negative trait. I can’t help but applaud almost any internal promotion at companies since so many from upper management, directors, etc. are hired outside and so rarely promoted up from within. I’m not sure it’s true that being a bad middle manager makes you a bad director or exec. I definitely agree that the most effective upper management (directors and execs) would mos…

I don't necessarily mean that managing up is negative in all cases. Its negative when that is the person's main focus - to manage up for that next promotion, make their mgmt believe everything they do is great, nothing is their fault. Its a very selfish point of view and where internal toxic politics breeds because in my eyes that person is putting themselves ahead of all others, the org, deliverables, the people that report to them, etc.

I see upper mgmt the same as middle mgmt. What is your distinction between the two? Budget control? They are both in the middle of the organization and are sort of generic jobs in a way.