Managing other people can be difficult, especially when you need to make decisions that are in the best interest of the organization (and its owners), but what may not necessarily be a popular choice among the employees you are responsible for. Often times "clueless leaders" actually do have a clue, it's just that their decisions have to consider other factors, not just what is best for you. It can really suck to be the person in that position.

This gets said so often yet it doesn't necessarily align. Personal responsibility is pushed aggressively, too.

More often, ICs don't get all the information. It's not about having a clue as much as information asymmetry. All those meetings should imply as much, anyway.

See any managers response during stand up: "in meetings all day, oh btw Blarg I need to talk to you about a release process". That's it? That's all you want to share?

I have been in that position delivering that update. The kind of work you have to do as VP/Director does not translate well into the task oriented stand up updates that developers give. Often times I would be working across multiple projects/initiatives - some I am responsible stakeholder, some I am an informed stakeholder, some are with external teams or companies - and most of these projects are over long periods of time - as in it is not 2 point or 4 point story item that can be updated in 60 seconds over stand up.

I worked one place where they brought in a new director who wasn't functionally competent. I have theories of why which are all probably partly true. Like he saw actually engaging and managing his division as a distraction from social engineering a lateral move up the ladder.

Eventually everyone under him in mass went to his boss and HR and told them flat out he needed to go. And the company did nothing for 18 months. And then just pruned him and the whole division of 25 experienced RF chip designers.

I have a theory that when the C-suite decides to slay an entire division they assign an incompetent boss. Give them a few months to mess it up. Then go for the kill. The incompetent new boss magically absorbs all the blame.

> whole division of 25 experienced RF chip designers.

This can only be done if workers have actual ownership stake in the company enough to do this.

The idea is for HR to implement a reporting system that allow the team to give that feedback to someone high-up enough to do something about it.

Resulting in the hiring of only people who agree with them

corporations are not democratic institutions

maybe they should be

That's a good question: Why not?

The USA "ideals" taught in school say that democracy and democratic republics are the best forms of government.... yet (almost) all our companies are autocratic dictatorships.

Because it's under the guise of meritocracy, where if you just work hard enough, say 60 hours a week, you too can become CEO someday.

"Meritocracy " isn't a thing, since the "merit deciders" (ala kingmakers) decide whatever they want. (Or the next question in that line: who decides what merit is and who has it?)

And, the gist also has very strong vibes of Ronald Wright's misattributed John Steinbeck's quote:

“John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/328134-john-steinbeck-once-...

60 hours of golf is a lot.

The actual machinery of government is not a democracy either. People who work at Federal agencies have to do what their managers tell them to do.

We elect the head of the executive branch. The rest of it is basically run like a bunch of corporations. We certainly don't elect the people who work at the IRS, for example.

The people to whom the org is responsible are the (Greek) demos[1]. For governments, this is the people. For corporations, this is the shareholders. Corporations are somewhat democratic WRT their demos.

[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/demos

Well, they are to quite some extend. But on the level of the owners / shareholders.

In essence, they are. Shareholders elect board members who hire for important roles.

This is similar to democratic governments. In no democracy will voters elect the Minister of Energy or Transport or Defense or Labor or the foreign secretary. This is chosen by the elected officials.

> In essence, they are. Shareholders elect board members who hire for important roles.

shareholders don't have all equal vote. Employees have no vote. Its closer to aristocracy if anything

Employers deserve to get vote as much as parts suppliers should. The company is a customer of employees, buying their labor.

Do you think US Steel should get to vote on what Ford Motor Company does? That just seems totally backwards.

You claimed it's a democracy - obviously that's not the case.

If you think it shouldn't be a democracy, thats fine, but is just an opinion and not a factual claim.

You are, ofcrouse entitled to your opinion. Classically company consists of employees just like your body is made uo of organs. When you damage them by treating them badly, you damage the company.

In neoliberal idea employees are disposable and company is not harmed when you harm them. Company is a separate entity that lives by itself, like a holy spirit, maybe it posseses the stock market on the 'brand value', i don't know.

The current stunt by Elon musk will show who is right, if Twitter does well when he is done destroying the talent pool, then you are right. If the company combusts, then you are wrong.

I am a neoliberal, which is why I think that.