You'd be surprised how many people in upper management have very fragile egos, regardless of the company. Childish behavior is very common in the industry. I can't even begin to count the number of times I've had to call senior members out and the only reason I could do that (unfortunately) was that I am a dude. I really sympathize with anyone who has to deal with these people.

Hypothesis: what you're labelling as "childish behaviour" is in fact "narcissism".

I think it's a little far-reaching to apply a pretty serious psychiatric evaluation (i.e. something meant to diagnose a significant mental deviation from the norm) to a pattern of behaviour that's incredibly common. Because it is so common, it becomes the norm. It is therefore more reasonable to assume it really is childish behaviour.

Narcissism isn't just a medical diagnosis. It's also just a character trait used to describe extreme selfishness outside of psychiatric circles.

Certain personality disorders become much more prevalent in certain jobs. CEOs are much more likely to be sociopaths than the general population, for example. Is it a stretch to assume that NPD might be similarly more common in high status positions?

Common misconception about sociopathic ceos: https://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/landay-harms-psychopat...

I find this very unpersuasive. Especially where it is arguing against claims not commonly made by such studies:

> We also found that leaders with psychopathic tendencies were slightly less effective at their jobs in terms of fostering productivity.

Usually the argument is that sociopaths rise to this level of power and eventually flame out. I’ve never seen any argument that sociopathy tends to make you a good CEO, but rather than it makes you more likely to rise to that level.

might be that sensitivity to stimulation is key for getting shit done … until it isnt.

And yet the leadership is compensated as if they're the only ones fit to lead.

They aren't unintelligent. There are almost no consequences for bad behavior.

Even if they are found guilty on all charges, it wouldn't affect their bottom line too much.

But there may be other factors. Companies that sacrificed employees for the public mob did get into problems with their employees.

If they are found guilty, which I think is very likely, their statement is indeed not too smart though.

It's almost like they're regular people, just like the rest of us.

Most regular people don't try to cover up sexual harassment.

I personally would have a hard time not immediately applying violence to the accused harasser.

Most regular people don't have such fragile egos.

> Less glib, this past year has taught me that a lot of companies are led by genuinely unintelligent people.

There's a reason that "meritocracy" was invented as a term to mock the state of things. It's a myth. It was always a myth. A joke.

The people selling the notion that the way things are is the result of a meritocracy is the secular Western equivalent of people using caste as a justification for shabby treatment of have-nots.