3 ms·

Ignoring the anti-Capitalism nonsense, there is one interesting observation: the dictatorship-like nature of most large corporations. I always thought that the

Ignoring the anti-Capitalism nonsense, there is one interesting observation: the dictatorship-like nature of most large corporations. I always thought that the top management tiers of large corporations almost invariably attract psychopaths and power-hungry individuals who would be oppressive leaders if they were instead in real-world dictatorships. And the middle tiers attract the kind of people who would be the typical mid-level "do nothing" bureaucrats in such systems.

arethuza 3y ago
You may have rediscovered the Sociopath/Clueless/Loser categorisation: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
CSMastermind 3y ago
Have you found that to be the case? I'd say that generally speaking I have not. I've made it to a point in my career where I interact with the top management at Fortune 100 companies and I have not at all found them to be psychopathic or power-hungry. Actually generally the opposite: those traits seem to be selected against. There are of course counter examples but I'd argue they're rare. I'd say that you'll find the psychopaths and power-hungry individuals in the middle layer of companies with the "do nothing" bureaucrats at the bottom of the management hierarchy, often without any formal people management titles at all.
- deathhand 3y ago
  I echo your statement and to take it a step further: In corporate politics there is only one thing that 'wins' and that is profitability. That profitability comes from the workforce so the top leaders are usually very motivated, democratic people because the best ideas win and you need people on your side. Thinking about the public sector, there is no KPI for a 'win'. When we try to start using statistics it becomes 'political', skewered, or hand waved away as a complex marcoeconomic force.
  - brabel 3y ago
    I believe studies have shown that people will routinely make bad decisions from the point-of-view of business, even when it's clear to them that that's the case, because of their other biases which are too powerful to resist, specially things like racism or similar forms of prejudice (e.g. someone who is from the same social level and geographical region as the boss gets promoted over a demonstrably better candidate who comes from a less favored region of the same country... sexism also seems to apply in many countries, including the USA).
- glimshe 3y ago
  I have. It's near impossible to get to the top without a hunger for power, which, I agree, starts when these people are in middle management - so not as much in founder-led companies (although not uncommon there either). Scheming, lying and political maneuvering at the expense of your peers is how you become the fake-friendly "Bob" or "Mike" calling the shots at the top. Non-founders who raise through the ranks largely depend on these traits. Feelings and empathy are selected away as they lead you to be passed over in promotions.
rob74 3y ago
Well, a dictator is almost by definition an oppressive leader - if he isn't oppressive enough, another more oppressive guy will come along and replace him. But yes, the observation you mentioned is indeed interesting. Hence the tendency of many people to think that states would also be better if run like a corporation, the desire to elect leaders that are (or pretend to be) successful managers, and that other observation that capitalism is not synonymous with democracy (and adopting capitalism does not automatically lead to democracy, as can be seen with China).
- brabel 3y ago
  > Well, a dictator is almost by definition an oppressive leader I think that you're making that up, dictators don't really need to be oppressive to remain in power. If that was true, most dictators would be quickly replaced early in their reign because there would be so many "more oppressive" people nearby, and that would only stop after "selection" done its job and a truly difficult to replace oppressive ruler was found. But that's never the case! When a dictator raises to power, usually chosen by the elite, they tend to remain in power for several decades.
  - rob74 3y ago
    If it doesn't happen that often that a new dictator manages to topple a current one, it's because the current dictator (a) already had a good power base/large support among the elite before he came to power and (b) because, as soon as he is in power, he's careful to keep his supporters among the elite happy and eliminate any possible contenders. Even Kim Jong Un, who had a good position by being built up as "heir" during his father's "reign", had to eliminate a few (true or imagined) competitors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong_Un#Purges_and_executions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong_Un#Purges_and_executi...).

arethuza 3y ago

You may have rediscovered the Sociopath/Clueless/Loser categorisation: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

CSMastermind 3y ago

Have you found that to be the case? I'd say that generally speaking I have not. I've made it to a point in my career where I interact with the top management at Fortune 100 companies and I have not at all found them to be psychopathic or power-hungry. Actually generally the opposite: those traits seem to be selected against. There are of course counter examples but I'd argue they're rare. I'd say that you'll find the psychopaths and power-hungry individuals in the middle layer of companies with the "do nothing" bureaucrats at the bottom of the management hierarchy, often without any formal people management titles at all.

deathhand 3y ago
I echo your statement and to take it a step further: In corporate politics there is only one thing that 'wins' and that is profitability. That profitability comes from the workforce so the top leaders are usually very motivated, democratic people because the best ideas win and you need people on your side. Thinking about the public sector, there is no KPI for a 'win'. When we try to start using statistics it becomes 'political', skewered, or hand waved away as a complex marcoeconomic force.
- brabel 3y ago
  I believe studies have shown that people will routinely make bad decisions from the point-of-view of business, even when it's clear to them that that's the case, because of their other biases which are too powerful to resist, specially things like racism or similar forms of prejudice (e.g. someone who is from the same social level and geographical region as the boss gets promoted over a demonstrably better candidate who comes from a less favored region of the same country... sexism also seems to apply in many countries, including the USA).
glimshe 3y ago
I have. It's near impossible to get to the top without a hunger for power, which, I agree, starts when these people are in middle management - so not as much in founder-led companies (although not uncommon there either). Scheming, lying and political maneuvering at the expense of your peers is how you become the fake-friendly "Bob" or "Mike" calling the shots at the top. Non-founders who raise through the ranks largely depend on these traits. Feelings and empathy are selected away as they lead you to be passed over in promotions.

rob74 3y ago

Well, a dictator is almost by definition an oppressive leader - if he isn't oppressive enough, another more oppressive guy will come along and replace him. But yes, the observation you mentioned is indeed interesting. Hence the tendency of many people to think that states would also be better if run like a corporation, the desire to elect leaders that are (or pretend to be) successful managers, and that other observation that capitalism is not synonymous with democracy (and adopting capitalism does not automatically lead to democracy, as can be seen with China).

brabel 3y ago
> Well, a dictator is almost by definition an oppressive leader I think that you're making that up, dictators don't really need to be oppressive to remain in power. If that was true, most dictators would be quickly replaced early in their reign because there would be so many "more oppressive" people nearby, and that would only stop after "selection" done its job and a truly difficult to replace oppressive ruler was found. But that's never the case! When a dictator raises to power, usually chosen by the elite, they tend to remain in power for several decades.
- rob74 3y ago
  If it doesn't happen that often that a new dictator manages to topple a current one, it's because the current dictator (a) already had a good power base/large support among the elite before he came to power and (b) because, as soon as he is in power, he's careful to keep his supporters among the elite happy and eliminate any possible contenders. Even Kim Jong Un, who had a good position by being built up as "heir" during his father's "reign", had to eliminate a few (true or imagined) competitors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong_Un#Purges_and_executions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong_Un#Purges_and_executi...).