3 ms·
I'd argue that this problem exists in any large bureaucratic culture, and that its prevalence is often just as bad in non up-or-out environments. The key diffe
by jonnathanson 14y ago
I'd argue that this problem exists in any large bureaucratic culture, and that its prevalence is often just as bad in non up-or-out environments.
The key difference between up-or-out and the alternative is that, in the alternative, a certain segment of the employee base plays the politics game, and a certain segment kicks back and stagnates in the middle, while the rest try to get ahead honestly. In up-or-out, at least the third category has a decent shot. In non-up-or-out, the people trying to work hard and advance on merit will run up against the entrenched slackocracy and the political Machiavellians.
- bane 14y agoIt's almost like you're describing the dichotomy between military officers and civilian federal government jobs, where somebody can chill in a GS-13 position for 20 years and then retire.
- lifeguard 14y agoFalse equivocation. The problems are not all of the same severity, and it is a fallacy to say they are "all the same" just because you use the same word, problems.
- jonnathanson 14y agoI didn't say that. In my post, "problem" was referring to the parent post's "politics organized around moving up." My point is that most corporate cultures have elements of that focus on upward mobility. Obviously its prevalence varies from company to company. But I'd rather take a culture with an over-focus on upward mobility and potential for upward mobility than a culture with even a lesser focus on upward mobility, but less potential for it (due to all the dead weight). I'm not holding "focus on upward mobility" equal in that assessment.