Comment by neilv
7 months ago
> and gives us a name to actually blame.
Understanding the dynamics is great, and we can learn from that, and apply it to other situations.
As for who to blame for something a company does, shouldn't outsiders blame the entire company? That's our interface, and also how we can hold the company accountable for its collective behavior.
It's also a defense against scapegoating: it wasn't just one person who made a unilateral decision, and everyone else -- up to and including the board, as well as down the tree, to those who knew and could walk and/or whistleblow -- was totally powerless. The company as an entity is responsible, and a lot of individuals were key or complicit.
> shouldn't outsiders blame the entire company
No, I firmly believe that this level of indirection over-diffuses responsibility in a way that enables the malfeseance we're observing.
It's a social dark pattern that I'm keen to identify and disrupt.
Yes, 100 percent. These dipwads pay themselves 100x salaries. The only way to defend that is that they take 100x responsibility for screwing things up. I would say differently if it was just a rank-and-file IC but this individual has enriched himself greatly. He can endure a little bit of scrutiny for that.
Yes, I agree with you but it goes both ways.
I had the unfortunate experience of running a startup with a couple of guys from a name brand fintech. They absolutely demolished the company before we got our first sale.
I couldn’t quite work out if these guys learned their mendacious trade from $bigcorp or if $bigcorps simply attract these kind of people.
My sense is that it’s a bit from both columns - I think that huge, profit driven megacorps, in general, are bad for society, in part because corporate culture itself is rapacious, and in part because they deliver enormous power into the hands of incredibly selfish people.
I disagree, because this ends up with implying that if you just got rid of That One Fucking Guy, then everything with Google Search would be good.
Which... is not a claim I'd agree with without extremely convincing evidence.
Ehh, I don't think that's really what it implies.
It implies that getting rid of That Fucking Guy is a necessary but likely insufficient condition for improving things.
Orgs that have been dysfunctional for a long time tend to have very complex dysfunctions, but there are still ways to fix these orgs, and it often starts by removing poor leadership from their posts.
Does it immediately make everything sunshine and lollipops? Of course not, but removing leadership that's actively working to counter your goals is still a necessary step towards the greater goal.
I think there are often two camps when it comes to organizational dynamics: "Team Incentives" (everything is about org structure and incentives) vs. "Team Great Person" (everything is about a small set of specific high-level people)
The reality is often somewhere in between. IMO "Team Incentives" often errs too much in that belief - especially because dysfunctional incentives are often downstream from a surprisingly small number of people.
3 replies →
Someone can still be responsible for decisions made in a system with poor incentives.
1 reply →
You need to do both
The company should be held responsible for bad actions AND so should the individuals.
Absolutely true