3 ms·

The irony of your rant is that you are pointing to the other extreme. > Not all of them are the same, and many actually seek feedback in earnest. And many act

The irony of your rant is that you are pointing to the other extreme. > Not all of them are the same, and many actually seek feedback in earnest. And many actually seek to retaliate on feedback - as evidence by the parent post. We can both be right but you cannot deny other's experiences and insight. You yourself are aware and have seen other execs who are more interested in self-preservation. So they exist, and are not a rarity. So yeah, nOt EvErY eXeC iS lIkE tHaT - but plenty are and that's what my post intends to highlight to the avid reader. My intent is to highlight the truth and present the reality of what exec position is. And that, leadership is not to be expected by default.

try_the_bass 2y ago
"plenty that are" isn't sufficient, though? Comments like yours tend toward the portrayal of all companies as being evil and exploitative. It's trivially obvious that this is not the case, so perhaps you're just trying to claim that the vast majority of them are evil and exploitative? In my career, I've had fewer "bad" companies than "good", and none of the "good" ones match any of your descriptions of what "companies are like". Am I to believe I've just had incredible luck? Maybe! However, I reject the notion that the "vast majority" of companies are exploitative. This does not fit with my experience, or the experiences of my peers. I would say "less than half", if I were to really ballpark the number. This, of course, puts your comments in a pretty poor light, for me. You're outright insulting the "good" companies I've worked for, by insinuating that they were only trying to exploit me for profit. I mean, they were "exploiting" me, if you really want to split hairs, but I understood the nature of the relationship and actively consented to it, because the relationship also benefitted me. I had a good job, good colleagues, challenging work, solid responsibilities, good benefits, good pay, and more. The fact that the "company" was trying to make more from the output of my work than they were offering to me as compensation is not an inherently bad thing. I could not, on my own, build the kinds of things these companies were building, nor would I have thought of the products/services on my own, so there is indeed value in being "a company". I was also part of said company, and identified as such. My success was its success, and vice versa. Your outlook on this topic is needlessly pessimistic.

try_the_bass 2y ago

"plenty that are" isn't sufficient, though? Comments like yours tend toward the portrayal of all companies as being evil and exploitative. It's trivially obvious that this is not the case, so perhaps you're just trying to claim that the vast majority of them are evil and exploitative? In my career, I've had fewer "bad" companies than "good", and none of the "good" ones match any of your descriptions of what "companies are like". Am I to believe I've just had incredible luck? Maybe! However, I reject the notion that the "vast majority" of companies are exploitative. This does not fit with my experience, or the experiences of my peers. I would say "less than half", if I were to really ballpark the number. This, of course, puts your comments in a pretty poor light, for me. You're outright insulting the "good" companies I've worked for, by insinuating that they were only trying to exploit me for profit. I mean, they were "exploiting" me, if you really want to split hairs, but I understood the nature of the relationship and actively consented to it, because the relationship also benefitted me. I had a good job, good colleagues, challenging work, solid responsibilities, good benefits, good pay, and more. The fact that the "company" was trying to make more from the output of my work than they were offering to me as compensation is not an inherently bad thing. I could not, on my own, build the kinds of things these companies were building, nor would I have thought of the products/services on my own, so there is indeed value in being "a company". I was also part of said company, and identified as such. My success was its success, and vice versa. Your outlook on this topic is needlessly pessimistic.