Maybe so but it's not like that's something you can really control. You can control the policy so that is what's done.

Basic statistics. You can find 10 people that will probably not abuse the system but definitely not 100.

It’s like your friend group and time choosing a place to eat. It’s not your friends, it’s the law of averages.

Well partly, yes.

But also, when I tell one of my reports to spec and order himself a PC, there should be several controls in place.

Firstly, I should give clear enough instructions that they know whether they should be spending around $600, $1500, or $6000.

Second, although my reports can freely spend ~$100 no questions asked, expenses in the $1000+ region should require my approval.

Thirdly, there is monitoring of where money is going; spending where the paperwork isn't in order gets flagged and checked. If someone with access to the company amazon account gets an above-ground pool shipped to their home, you can bet there will be questions to be answered.

Was trying to remember a counter example on good hires and wasted money.

Alex St. John Microsoft Windows 95 era, created directX annnnd also built an alien spaceship.

I dimly recalled it as a friend in the games division telling me about some someone getting 5 and a 1 review scores in close succession.

Facts i could find (yes i asked an llm)

5.0 review: Moderately supported. St. John himself hosted a copy of his Jan 10, 1996 Microsoft performance review on his blog (the file listing still exists in archives). It reportedly shows a 5.0 rating, which in that era was the rare top-box mark. Fired a year later: Factual. In an open letter (published via GameSpot) he states he was escorted out of Microsoft on June 24, 1997, about 18 months after the 5.0 review. Judgment Day II alien spaceship party: Well documented as a plan. St. John’s own account (quoted in Neowin, Gizmodo, and others) describes an H.R. Giger–designed alien-ship interior in an Alameda air hangar, complete with X-Files cast involvement and a Gates “head reveal” gag. Sunk cost before cancellation: Supported. St. John says the shutdown came “a couple of weeks” before the 1996 event date, after ~$4.3M had already been spent/committed (≈$1.2M MS budget + ≈$1.1M sponsors + additional sunk costs). Independent summaries repeat this figure (“in excess of $4 million”).

So: 5.0 review — moderate evidence Fired 1997 — factual Alien spaceship build planned — factual ≈$4M sunk costs — supported by St. John’s own retrospective and secondary reporting

I’m not quite sure I see how building directx and building an alien spaceship are incompatible.

Nor how either translates to being a bad hire.

As a company grows, it will undoubtedly hire some "wrong people" along the way.

Absolutely, but then you fire them again. Saves both salaries and expenses.

Which is a process that takes time.