Ask HN: Why do corporate failures always seem to punish the wrong people?
My partner was let go after 15 years working tirelessly for one of the big five. She's probably the most resilient, rewarded and liked person that has survived and fought through this part of the business in the past decade, and while I am clearly biased, all her colleagues would most certainly agree. She's moved from IC to managing over 30 people and barely manages to use vacation days because she's always working. She was let go not because of her own incompetence, failure or not fitting in, but purely out of rushed budget cuts (budgets were finalized, finalized again, and then they realized it's still not good enough). The reason for those cuts, in this particular instance, was not the overwhelming rise of AI and/or getting more firing power for data centers, it was very clearly a long-visible path of failure two levels above, where one particular person continued to wreak havoc up over the past few years, and, ultimately, caused this cul-de-sac disaster. The person at the center of this all is an older dude who consistenty has been on the wrong side of any decision he's made. I've only heard of a few things as it is (literally) none of my business, but it's been nothing but chaotic and ill-advised choices. He moved into this role from failing elsewhere, leaving the chaos there behind him, and over the past two years, now has caused yet another disaster in this new role. My question is, and sort of the point of this post (which I understand is entirely philosophical): how do these people consistently survive their self-inflicted disasters? While her entire team (30+) has been let go now as a result of it all, the person who ran this into the ground continues onwards in the business? They even made her fire and break the news to most of her team in weekly chunks recently, before telling her she's of course, also done. I used to work for a big five too, but have been self-employed for over a decade now, so I may be too far out to understand, but it just puzzles me how certain people always manage to stay untainted admist the chaos they've caused, at the cost of everyone else. This used to be a thing I've heard over and over again from friends at Google, but it really seems to be very consistent thing elsewhere, too. They're clearly not smart people, is it ruthlessness? Are they aware of the disaster they're navigating into and plan well ahead? It's a mystery to me, and it just can't be healthy for these companies to allow such folks to continue onwards.
Discussion Highlights (11 comments)
hypfer
Have you read the Gervais Principle? => https://ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-t...
mattbrewsbytes
I've seen a fair share of personalities in middle/upper management. My hypothesis is that in large organizations, people that operate at that level often exhibit more survival skills that are ruthless than moral. A common characteristic I've seen is they manage "up" well and are often not good managers themselves. So if they control the narrative with their management, even when they screw up everything, its articulated as something else and not their fault, they may even believe that to be true. I don't think it matters what industry it is, you get an organization large enough and some humans start exhibiting these behaviors, they often rise up in leadership ranks. Have you ever read the Ribbonfarm series about organizational/management theory tied to The Office?[0] Its worth a read or a refresh. It might even be cathartic reading for your partner after an event like this. [0] https://ribbonfarm.com/series/the-gervais-principle/
tclancy
>how do these people consistently survive their self-inflicted disasters? There's a lot of good answers here. One supplement I would make to a few of them is it is harder to fire or punish someone the more they resemble you. A lot easier to see the fault in a woman a couple of rungs down than a guy your age who looks a lot like you and you've had beers with for a decade. The (truly) wealthy aren't like me and you. And in a crisis you'll find out how they're different real quick.
jlengrand
Just to add another item to the list others have brought up : Goal displacement -> Goal displacement occurs when an organization or individual shifts focus from original objectives to secondary goals, often prioritizing procedures, metrics, or internal processes over intended outcomes. In large corps, people who are good at staying in a company, and people who are good at serving the company's objectives are typically two different skillsets. And one of those skillset helps you stay inside the company more than the other.
baggachipz
You're under the assumption that corporations (especially big ones) are some form of meritocracy. Don't believe the bullshit, it's all about politics, timing, and luck (in that order). Publicly-traded companies always put short-term profits over anything else; if they don't demonstrably do that, the leadership exposes themselves and the company to shareholder lawsuits. I've been at a BigCorp where layoffs happen at the end of each quarter to look good on the balance sheet, only to hire most of those people back. Rinse and repeat. Again, this has nothing to do with "doing a good job" or being a model employee. The days of working hard and getting rewarded are dead and buried, and the MBAs are the ones with the guns and shovels.
zby
It is an interesting subject - but so much have been written about it in the past. I would like to read what are the new angles. And for the past discussions see: HACKER NEWS DISCUSSION LINKS THE GERVAIS PRINCIPLE * The Gervais Principle Main Submission (October 2009) https://ycombinator.com * The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to "The Office" (August 2024) https://ycombinator.com MORAL MAZES * Moral Mazes: Bureaucracy and Managerial Work (February 2020) https://ycombinator.com * Moral Mazes and Emotional Labor Comment (October 2019) https://ycombinator.com MEDITATIONS ON MOLOCH * Meditations on Moloch Systems Discussion (April 2019) https://ycombinator.com * Meditations on Moloch Main Discussion (March 2023) https://ycombinator.com * Context from Scott Alexander's Blog (June 2025) https://ycombinator.com THREADS INTERSECTING MULTIPLE CONCEPTS * Best books for dealing with workplace politics and dishonesty? (December 2020) https://ycombinator.com * Analysis comparing Gervais Principle to Moral Mazes (April 2023) https://ycombinator.com * Ask HN: Stories of political intrigue in large companies (December 2023) https://ycombinator.com * Things I want to say to my boss (December 2025) https://ycombinator.com
johnsmith4739
Corporate world is tribal, if not feudal. Reason why the Nobles can do nothing wrong by default, and the Villagers are always the villan. If I may have a suggestion, Buckminster Fuller - Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth is a short and great perspective over these dynamics.
manoDev
Never work tirelessly for anything that isn’t yours.
markus_zhang
Because it is a human business, and human business is always messy and unfair. You are not supposed to get any amount of fairness unless you have the power.
tygon
So much of it is association. The human brain (for better or worse) is really good at building comfort in routine. If you see the same person over and over, you naturally will think they are just "part of the environment." They belong there. You get to know "how they tick" and even if that person has faults, you sometimes overlook them because you have built up a rapport. Yeah, Billy in accounting can sometimes be late, but he is friendly and always knows the scores from the big game. We would rather a known variable, even if it is not the best instead of an unknown that might be better.
ThatGuysGood
I once jokingly answered in an interview question about time complexity something that is seemingly incorrect but is actually correct. Everyone knows object lookups (hash maps) are generally O(1) complexity and thus more performant than arrays for looking up values. And that becomes a rule of thumb - codified as law. But it’s not always true. For example if you know the index, the array lookup is significantly faster in virtually all languages. But I answered in a way that sounded like it was exactly wrong. And it was treated as such. To me, it sums up the problem with corporate intelligentsia. And it gave me yet another reason to be fake and lie all the time. While I think the nuance should separate the strong from the weak, instead you just get snapped to a grid of mainstream talking points anyway, so you have to stick to that grid up front if you know what’s best! Choose the right paths and they are rigid