8 ms·

> how do these people consistently survive their self-inflicted disasters? Because they don't believe the disasters were inflicted by them. The other aspect i

> how do these people consistently survive their self-inflicted disasters? Because they don't believe the disasters were inflicted by them. The other aspect is managing the manager. This comes in form of delivering something what their manager needs. So, their manager has a goal of reducing costs they will act as a yes-man despite their abilities. They might come up with ridiculous ideas and convince their managers that it is a good idea because they are the ones executing on the ground. If and when it fails the issue isn't because the idea was bad it was because circumstances. Also, it is a fallacy that many engineers think being smart is enough. We tend to debate efforts - how much work we put in - but for management, company and even shareholders the outcome matters. People who figure out sooner thrive a lot.

bigbadfeline 24d ago
> Because they don't believe the disasters were inflicted by them. It's not quite clear how "they" and "them" are related but I see only two options: 1. Bad managers believe what's convenient for them in order avoid dying from shame - but this is a truism and it has nothing to do with the original question. 2. The managers of bad managers believe that the managers below them can do no wrong - but this is like calling the entire management hierarchy a bunch of incompetents, because believing has little to do with rational analysis and evaluation of important decisions, it doesn't work as an answer to the original question: "Why is there no accountability from certain level up?". > The other aspect is managing the manager. That aspect, and its entire paragraph, are a rather confusing reformulation of the original question. > If and when it fails the issue isn't because the idea was bad it was because circumstances. The end result of the confusion is a blanket excuse to any and all management failures: "it's the circumstances". The same can applied to everyone and everywhere which could only lead to a world more ridiculous than "Idiocracy". > but for management, company and even shareholders the outcome matters. I'm not sure what this is saying, the substance of the original question is why the outcome doesn't matter for the above group? And you already explained that it doesn't matter because "it's the circumstances"... I can't square that circle.

bigbadfeline 24d ago

> Because they don't believe the disasters were inflicted by them. It's not quite clear how "they" and "them" are related but I see only two options: 1. Bad managers believe what's convenient for them in order avoid dying from shame - but this is a truism and it has nothing to do with the original question. 2. The managers of bad managers believe that the managers below them can do no wrong - but this is like calling the entire management hierarchy a bunch of incompetents, because believing has little to do with rational analysis and evaluation of important decisions, it doesn't work as an answer to the original question: "Why is there no accountability from certain level up?". > The other aspect is managing the manager. That aspect, and its entire paragraph, are a rather confusing reformulation of the original question. > If and when it fails the issue isn't because the idea was bad it was because circumstances. The end result of the confusion is a blanket excuse to any and all management failures: "it's the circumstances". The same can applied to everyone and everywhere which could only lead to a world more ridiculous than "Idiocracy". > but for management, company and even shareholders the outcome matters. I'm not sure what this is saying, the substance of the original question is why the outcome doesn't matter for the above group? And you already explained that it doesn't matter because "it's the circumstances"... I can't square that circle.