zlacker

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+(OP)
We need to make evidence based judgements, not accusation based judgements.

I'm tired of the outage-clickbait.

I'm here to learn, not to be emotionally manipulated.

>>kevinv+(OP)
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?

>>koheri+Z2
There's evidence from one side in the lawsuits, while the defendants have so far declined to submit any for scrutiny. In any case, the title of this submission says that Fedex is 'accused' of fraud rather than having been found guilty of it, so you knew what you were getting before you clicked; you could have just ignored it.

>>nine_z+5a
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+hp
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.

>>anigbr+wb
When someone files a complaint against you with a court of appropriate jurisdiction to start a lawsuit, your only sane option is to file an answer. The complaint lists their allegations point by point. The answer either admits or denies each allegation, point by point.

It is not surprising that FedEx has declined to submit evidence for scrutiny. It’s not time for that yet. They will be required to do so in discovery and they better hope they can at trial but right now we should not expect to hear anything from them other than “admit, deny, insufficient basis to form a belief and therefore deny.”

It’s just too early for an evidence based discussion. This is the nature of the civil action.

>>koheri+Z2
Isn't this an example of an "accusation based judgement"?

> 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.

This amounts to "class action lawyers and journalists are bad so we can ignore what they're saying".

>>single+9s
There's absolutely nothing preventing them asserting their version of events and following up with evidentiary filings within a reasonable timeframe. Just like there's nothing preventing corporations from admitting liability and apologizing, but they generally prefer to settle instead and never ever admit fault, thanks to the pernicious doctrine of maximizing shareholder value.

>>Alexan+qs
I don’t think you have to conclude that was shared for that reason. It could be shared simply as “this is what a plaintiff alleges, and we don’t have any data or anything further to verify that these claims are true.”

>>anigbr+yt
There’s no value in presenting your evidence in the court of public opinion and intrigue. Argue your position in an actual court, where and when it matters. If a bunch of impatient people over-react to hearing only one side’s argument, so be it; you’ll exhaust yourself trying to convince them anyway and, in general, their opinion isn’t worth swaying.

>>nine_z+mq
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?

>>nine_z+mq
Fast growing startups have little middle management. Bloated pathologic orgs dying in a recession have a lot of management. To have fewer management, we need to only have young companies and let older ones collapse sooner.

>>sokolo+WB
Of course there is, perception matters or companies wouldn't have PR departments. They shove their brands in the public's face 24/7 with messages about how great they are but when they look bad they put on an air of injured dignity and cite platitudes about the legal system. The reality is that corporations usually just hope to exhaust plaintiffs in the legal system instead.

I went to law school and am married to someone who works in litigation at a top 10 law firm, I understand very well how the legal process works both technically and in economic/strategic terms.

>>anigbr+XT
Would companies prefer to have their PR departments talking about positive things the company is doing or refreshing and giving voice to an accusation of odometer rollbacks? I read nothing into FedEx’s silence on the topic, other than they are being run by adults taking competent advice.

>>jkaplo+OE
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?

>>anigbr+yt
Generally I agree with you but there’s also not anything stopping you from writing me a check for fifty grand. Nothing incentivizes them to disclose anything. I’m not too crazy about the state of affairs either.

>>sokolo+uX
competent advice to minimize liability and downplay unflattering news, or competent advice to behave morally and righteously in the eyes of the public?

seems the former, so you can see why the public is unimpressed

>>nine_z+W61
I see you’ve only had bad managers in your career. I’ve had both. The bad ones sometimes wrecked companies when they were in the C-suite and wrecked individual careers or teams when they were directly running a team. The good ones turned careers around (including my own when I was an immature oblivious junior) and helped get org-wide buy-in for a necessary re-org to fix real problems that ordinary technical employees noticed.

Shoveling around money and work is only a small piece of the job.

A good line manager does things like help resolve interpersonal and inter-team issues, helps address the issues causing underperforming team members to underperform so that they can improve instead of be fired, handles firings and layoffs when necessary but only as a last resort, makes sure team member career goals and skills get considered as opportunities arise, shares concerns and updates both up and down the chain, advocates upwards for necessary staffing and worthwhile raises, oversees hiring for the team in collaboration with the recruiter and tech lead, explains downward for applicable constraints and works with the tech lead how to apply them to the tasks at hand, and so on.

These have all been my goals in my line manager jobs. Notice I said nothing about technical matters or project management or driving execution. That’s tech lead stuff, with some oversight from the manager to make sure business needs are met.

People need management just like computers systems do, but the skill set is totally separate. Computers always do what they’re told, even if software bugs sometimes mean you didn’t tell them you think you told them. People have feelings and needs. Very different.

For a team of more than a few members, management is a full-time nontechnical job. For a 2-4 member team, yeah it can be split.

A good middle manager does the same kind of thing as I said a good line manager does, but managing managers and their teams/orgs instead of individuals.

A bad middle manager does what you think a manager does, and/or several other failure modes.