4 ms·
this assumes that the "top of the company" is a shining tower of competence, blissfully unaware of how incompetent the people below them are. more likely, the
by bcherry 3y ago
this assumes that the "top of the company" is a shining tower of competence, blissfully unaware of how incompetent the people below them are.
more likely, the top of the company is just as incompetent but has lucked / gamed their way into promotions anyways.
So this engineer throwing his managers under the bus may be good for the company in theory, but to the senior management this is a red flag. they don't want engineers who do this - they want engineers who give credit to their managers. if they promoted this engineer and fired everyone else, he'd come for them next.
- mcv 3y agoI would assume that the top of the company cares about money, that saving money is a good thing, and that hiring incompetent people is a bad thing. Of course if everybody quietly agrees that this company is a suitable vehicle for their incompetence, then it's a bad idea to address this. And some companies definitely are.