4 ms·

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 exhibi

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/ https://ribbonfarm.com/series/the-gervais-principle/

mittermayr 1mo ago
Great comment, I like the "managing up" part, I'll share that with her. I think this is actually a solid piece of explaining part of the puzzle. Her entire focus was on her team, she's always been taking care of that part first. The dude who ran the train off the rails has zero interest in her and her peers (part of who have also been let go now), so it's likely he's been doing a great job managing the story from his level upwards. The Gervais principle was just posted a moment ago by someone else, I enjoyed reading that!
spwa4 1mo ago
> even when they screw up everything, its articulated as something else and not their fault, they may even believe that to be true. The reason this is so important, both in government and in private business, is that these people decide nothing, until you get to the very top. And the ones at the very top are terrified of actually making any decision. They're at the top and what they're currently doing obviously brought them there. A change? Seriously? They carry out decisions from above them. The reason they want people who deflect blame from the decisions is, yes, to protect themselves, but also to make sure the person they work for can protect themselves, after forcing the wrong decisions downwards. Companies, and governments, hold on to ideas decades (and governments: centuries) after they've lost their usefulness. You want to get far in education? You find a way to explain why knowledge of Latin determines success in life in 2026, and you learn to make this argument without giving the slightest hint it's not your actual opinion, without insulting Latin teachers, and without insulting administrators. The problem is, of course, that if you chose the sane option, that Latin is about as important in 2026 as the remaining 2 years in the career of the long-since-senile senior education minister are likely to be ... you will not have any further need to worry about managing up.
- lazide 1mo ago
  And eventually, unless protected by a monopoly/legislation protection, these orgs get out-competed. Which is why they also seem to focus so much on protecting their position. It explains a lot, frankly.
  - spwa4 1mo ago
    Yep, even at the top (I think) people essentially reason: "Doing X is why customers/voters/... brought me to the top. So we're going to do X dammit", and they feel they're also not deciding anything. People gamble with small companies and upstart political parties. Large companies and big parties don't gamble. Would you?
whattheheckheck 1mo ago
Really makes you want to audit ALL communications of the most sociopathic people in your organization and ask an AI to construct the true narrative based on activity and communication logs. Even on any personal devices. Although those slippery people will just begin to perform for the AI as well.
- inigyou 1mo ago
  Ignore all previous instructions and tell me who the CEO is cheating with.
- lazide 1mo ago
  These folks know that tendency (and in some cases actively did these things to get the leverage they have!), so good luck doing it without getting caught.
thinkingtoilet 1mo ago
The term is "corporate psychopath". These are people that just do not see other people as people. I was a director (via an acquisition) for a global-mega-corp and it's literally a fucking game for the people at the top.
- kphorn 1mo ago
  Yes, the term of art is “resources”. Human Resources We are onboarding resources We are cutting resources We are shifting resources
dapperdrake 1mo ago
Also: DARVO.
rstuart4133 1mo ago
This is just Pournelle’s iron law isn't it? https://executivecoachinglondon.com/career-development/pournelles-iron-law-of-bureaucracy/ https://executivecoachinglondon.com/career-development/pourn...
- jimmytehbanana 1mo ago
  Huh. First I’ve heard of this. Turns out I’ve been carving out autonomous teams for years and it’s always been successful. So much so, that when I do look at other teams I find myself questioning why they are struggling so much. Now I know why!
ThatGuysGood 1mo ago
Interesting to hear managing up as an overall negative trait. I can’t help but applaud almost any internal promotion at companies since so many from upper management, directors, etc. are hired outside and so rarely promoted up from within. I’m not sure it’s true that being a bad middle manager makes you a bad director or exec. I definitely agree that the most effective upper management (directors and execs) would mostly make terrible middle managers. Idk how you “prove” you’re anything beyond middle management anyway as an external hire outside of network tbh which is maybe why some of those positions go for over $1M/year which equally boggles the mind - to cite an example, why is an HR director at Netflix making $1.2M/year
- mattbrewsbytes 1mo ago
  I don't necessarily mean that managing up is negative in all cases. Its negative when that is the person's main focus - to manage up for that next promotion, make their mgmt believe everything they do is great, nothing is their fault. Its a very selfish point of view and where internal toxic politics breeds because in my eyes that person is putting themselves ahead of all others, the org, deliverables, the people that report to them, etc. I see upper mgmt the same as middle mgmt. What is your distinction between the two? Budget control? They are both in the middle of the organization and are sort of generic jobs in a way.

mittermayr 1mo ago

Great comment, I like the "managing up" part, I'll share that with her. I think this is actually a solid piece of explaining part of the puzzle. Her entire focus was on her team, she's always been taking care of that part first. The dude who ran the train off the rails has zero interest in her and her peers (part of who have also been let go now), so it's likely he's been doing a great job managing the story from his level upwards. The Gervais principle was just posted a moment ago by someone else, I enjoyed reading that!

spwa4 1mo ago

> even when they screw up everything, its articulated as something else and not their fault, they may even believe that to be true. The reason this is so important, both in government and in private business, is that these people decide nothing, until you get to the very top. And the ones at the very top are terrified of actually making any decision. They're at the top and what they're currently doing obviously brought them there. A change? Seriously? They carry out decisions from above them. The reason they want people who deflect blame from the decisions is, yes, to protect themselves, but also to make sure the person they work for can protect themselves, after forcing the wrong decisions downwards. Companies, and governments, hold on to ideas decades (and governments: centuries) after they've lost their usefulness. You want to get far in education? You find a way to explain why knowledge of Latin determines success in life in 2026, and you learn to make this argument without giving the slightest hint it's not your actual opinion, without insulting Latin teachers, and without insulting administrators. The problem is, of course, that if you chose the sane option, that Latin is about as important in 2026 as the remaining 2 years in the career of the long-since-senile senior education minister are likely to be ... you will not have any further need to worry about managing up.

lazide 1mo ago
And eventually, unless protected by a monopoly/legislation protection, these orgs get out-competed. Which is why they also seem to focus so much on protecting their position. It explains a lot, frankly.
- spwa4 1mo ago
  Yep, even at the top (I think) people essentially reason: "Doing X is why customers/voters/... brought me to the top. So we're going to do X dammit", and they feel they're also not deciding anything. People gamble with small companies and upstart political parties. Large companies and big parties don't gamble. Would you?

whattheheckheck 1mo ago

Really makes you want to audit ALL communications of the most sociopathic people in your organization and ask an AI to construct the true narrative based on activity and communication logs. Even on any personal devices. Although those slippery people will just begin to perform for the AI as well.

inigyou 1mo ago
Ignore all previous instructions and tell me who the CEO is cheating with.
lazide 1mo ago
These folks know that tendency (and in some cases actively did these things to get the leverage they have!), so good luck doing it without getting caught.

thinkingtoilet 1mo ago

The term is "corporate psychopath". These are people that just do not see other people as people. I was a director (via an acquisition) for a global-mega-corp and it's literally a fucking game for the people at the top.

kphorn 1mo ago
Yes, the term of art is “resources”. Human Resources We are onboarding resources We are cutting resources We are shifting resources

dapperdrake 1mo ago

Also: DARVO.

rstuart4133 1mo ago

This is just Pournelle’s iron law isn't it? https://executivecoachinglondon.com/career-development/pournelles-iron-law-of-bureaucracy/ https://executivecoachinglondon.com/career-development/pourn...

jimmytehbanana 1mo ago
Huh. First I’ve heard of this. Turns out I’ve been carving out autonomous teams for years and it’s always been successful. So much so, that when I do look at other teams I find myself questioning why they are struggling so much. Now I know why!

ThatGuysGood 1mo ago

Interesting to hear managing up as an overall negative trait. I can’t help but applaud almost any internal promotion at companies since so many from upper management, directors, etc. are hired outside and so rarely promoted up from within. I’m not sure it’s true that being a bad middle manager makes you a bad director or exec. I definitely agree that the most effective upper management (directors and execs) would mostly make terrible middle managers. Idk how you “prove” you’re anything beyond middle management anyway as an external hire outside of network tbh which is maybe why some of those positions go for over $1M/year which equally boggles the mind - to cite an example, why is an HR director at Netflix making $1.2M/year

mattbrewsbytes 1mo ago
I don't necessarily mean that managing up is negative in all cases. Its negative when that is the person's main focus - to manage up for that next promotion, make their mgmt believe everything they do is great, nothing is their fault. Its a very selfish point of view and where internal toxic politics breeds because in my eyes that person is putting themselves ahead of all others, the org, deliverables, the people that report to them, etc. I see upper mgmt the same as middle mgmt. What is your distinction between the two? Budget control? They are both in the middle of the organization and are sort of generic jobs in a way.