zlacker

>>cwwc+(OP)
I'd encourage a bit more skepticism to this article. While this accusation could possibly be true, there are two things to keep in mind, which I am sharing having experience as a founder/CEO who has gone from startup to IPO:

1) This is taken from a complaint in a class action lawsuit. Class action lawyers are very similar to patent trolls whereby they can spin almost any story they want. And journalists go for clicks, so they amplify the sensationalism. It doesn't mean this is one of those, but a class action complaint should not just blindly be trusted.

2) There is a strong theme of "of course execs lie cheat steal at every turn" and I also think this narrative should be questioned. Ethics aside, the level of compliance in a public company is insanely high. Execs are already rich. To risk jailtime, which fraud can lead to, you'd need to see something more existential than slightly increasing margins on used van sales.

I felt inclined to comment as I've been on the other end of articles like this, and it is astounding the level of mind reading people have done into my intent and actions on things that were factually just not true at all. I also truly would find it very difficult to commit a broad organizational fraud even if I wanted to and my company is only 500 people.

If I had to make a prediction, the case is less black and white than it appears, and if there was fraud, it was probably committed at a non-executive level by the person whose P&L was directly tied to these resales. Or, it was done independently by the much smaller leasing company where this was more existential to them. It is highly unlikely to be a Fed Ex executive-level conspiracy.

I'm sure there are a few counter examples, such as say the VW emissions scandal, but I would counter these were the exceptions that proved the rule and in general when the C-level was involved was much higher stakes.

>>crhull+0y
I understand your defensiveness, but the article did not even imply that the CEO was directly implicated. That said, I think it is still at some level their responsibility if this fraud turns out to be true; “the person whose P&L was directly tied to these resales” still had ever stricter OKR’s they had to answer for, and apparently no double-checking or auditing was done because that person’s boss didn’t want to know. They were rewarded for numbers going up and to the right, as was their boss, as was their boss, up to the CEO.

Sorry, I just tire of narratives where when a corporation does something morally wrong, it’s the fault of nebulous capitalist hyper-optimization and no individuals are held accountable.

>>kevinv+NB
This is really the crux of the failure of organizations. The execs might not want fraud (or other problems) to happen.

But, upper and middle management don't care about the company as much as the execs. They would much rather show the numbers, earn their comp and fuck off, than worry about long term sustainability of the company or of their reports.

Has anyone really complained about middle management yet?

>>nine_z+SL
The only thing a frustrated middle manager can do to deal with sociopathic upper management that turns a blind eye to departmental suffering is to candidly look at the bullshit you have to put up with, then make the decision on whether you've got the life left for this bullshit.

Unironically, earn the comp, and fuck off to let the next person up the totem pole deal with the consequences of their decisions.

Shit may roll downhill, but sometimes, nothing changes til the guy at the top gets a swift boot to the ass in the form of a dose of Real Life (TM).

>>salawa+411
Yes, a decent middle manager doesn't have too many choices either.

It is getting clearer to everyone (from execs to ICs) that the command structure with layers and layers of management gives rise to pathological behaviors in the organization.

Perhaps this round of recession will bring some change to organization structures - ideally with less middle management.

>>nine_z+921
A flatter hierarchy isn't a great solution to an excess middle management when it means that one manager has 15-20 direct reports, as opposed to a healthier target number of 6-8 or maybe 10-12 at maximum. It is important that each manager has adequate time to manage each of their people in a way that enables the kind of proper relationship that supports their team members when they need it.

The current round of recession will probably temporarily shrink some companies or cut off some lines of business, thereby flattening the hierarchy in a less harmful way than what I described. But overworking managers is a different bad thing.

Maybe you're advocating for a smaller maximum company size overall, so that a relatively flat hierarchy doesn't overwhelm those managers who do remain? Or for some right of participation by non-executive managers in collective worker action, as exists in Germany and as acted in the original version of the US National Labor Relations Act before the Taft-Hartley amendments, so that some kinds of large-company pathologies can be addressed better?

>>jkaplo+Bg1
The main reason why flatter hierarchies doesn't work is because managers are asked to do work reporting, career management and performance management. But all of these are pathological, BS work.

Reporting can literally be done by an "administrative assistant". You could have an administrative assistant for 50 ICs and it won't make a difference. There is no need for layers.

Career management only exists because there are so many layers in the ladder. If there were only 2 levels, and then VP, there would be no need for career management. There is no need for layers for the actual work to get done.

Performance management is another load of crap because it is something that should only be required for determination of rewards or to completely fire people. But this job doesn't need layers and layers of management.

If you want to see the structure top down, the CEO should have VPs who allocate money to teams. The teams should have pieces of ownership that they are supposed to run and maintain. A team lead/captain can run the team.

But that's it. What is the need for kingdoms of apes that don't really do much except pushing work downwards?