A classic case of goal subordination, a standard topic in courses in organizational behavior and/or public administration. So, the definition of goal subordina

A classic case of goal subordination, a standard topic in courses in organizational behavior and/or public administration. So, the definition of goal subordination is an employee acting in a way that helps them but hurts the company. That is, the goal of helping the company is subordinated to, that is, made less important than, the goal of helping the person engaging in goal subordination. In the case of the OP, it was not nearly just the fired employee who was hurt but 2-3 levels of management above that employee, the whole company, Bezos, and the stockholders. Gee, some parts of the roll out were not ready on time! Like this is the first time in projects? Gee, even for the pyramids, the project leaders needed enough in workers, food, stone cutting tools, wood, rope, etc. -- lack of any one of these inputs could stop the whole leaders whole project. That's part of what we now call materials requirements planning, right, MRP. And for getting all the parts ready on time, there is methodology for that, in part, an application of linear programming with critical paths, etc. US aerospace got good at such things. So, that little project at Amazon fumbled the ball on having the ad parts ready? They hired the people straight out of what, kindergarten? And, after the project went forward, Amazon sent in a staff group, in an independent part of the organization, to analyze what went right/wrong? In Tunisia, Ike did that after Kasserine and the other battles in the Tunisian campaign, and soon Rommel was permanently back in Berlin, and the Allies had captured about 300,000 Axis soldiers and driven the Axis out of North Africa, from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, to Egypt and the Suez Canal. Apparently in the US Army, such analysis of what happened is called an after-action review, e.g., as at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After-action_review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After-action_review not nearly new stuff, and Amazon should be able to do well with such a process. Managing, planning, executing, reviewing projects is not nearly new stuff; Amazon just blew it. Not so good for Bezos. The most serious sources of goal subordination are middle management: The worker bees don't have enough power seriously to hurt the company, and the work of the C-level guys is too visible to the CEO and the BoD. It's totally dumb for the company to have HR blindly back middle management possibly engaged in goal subordination, playing politics to "look good" while, really, making a mess, etc. E.g., she was messing up and reported to a guy who knew her resume was wrong -- can anyone guess what might have been going on here? I mean, anyone who at least went through junior high? Bezos made it through junior high, right? Also there needs to be a company culture of honesty, hard work, good ideas, etc. For such a culture, need to be sure that a middle manager won't dump on a subordinate who does really good work. A lot is known about how to manage, e.g., to reduce goal subordination. For the employee who got fired, when I get around to needing a guy to work with major advertisers, I'll consider him in a millisecond. "Black list"? Sure, fine with me; the other companies can black list him while I hire him! But he might sue my company? If my company messed up as badly as it appears Amazon did, then he should sue us; if he didn't, that would be against him. I'd hope that we wouldn't mess up like that. Yes, that ad guy might report some really great successes to me. Okay, I mean, terrific, if they are real. Of course, I'd also get independent confirmation, say, directly from appropriate people at the company paying for the ads. If he did really well, then, sure, presto, bingo, bonus time, say, early in December. I know; I know; this idea of such a bonus doesn't go along with the Ben Horowitz lecture, just yesterday or some such, in Sam's course, right? Sorry, Ben. The US military can give battlefield promotions, decorations, etc., so I'll be willing to hand out a December bonus. If the ad guy didn't do so well, then have a project to understand why and do better the next time. If he needs to go to a week long seminar "How to Be a Good Ad Exec 101", and it's actually a useful seminar, then fine. If he can't really do the job, then help him learn to do his job. Why might he not be able to do his job? One reason: He worked really hard on some of his last jobs while the world changed. So, e.g., he needs to get caught up on, say, the business of mobile ads. Okay; let him get caught up. Notice I said he's an "ad guy" and not an "Ad Exec". I just want him to do his job and not hang on titles that can cause problems (here Ben was roughly correct). And the manager? Largely to heck with that nonsense: In a good university, usually a department chair doesn't get to rule over the professors as if they were subordinate worker bees. Instead, the chair does some coordination, etc., and the job is not always coveted and not necessarily a promotion! Basic fact: Each instance of good work is first done between just one pair of ears. Sorry 'bout that. For a team, all the good work is of just this kind. What we really want now is just such good work. For the routine coordination, etc. can leave that to managers, but that is inferior work. E.g., the coordination needed to get all the pieces done on time for the big roll out is work that was done at least back to the pyramids and, thus, has to be regarded as routine. Some of this is controversial? Yup. YMMV. Sorry 'bout that.