Well, this advice is all tailored towards "how to keep your job and make your money as a leader when the vibes are off". But I and almost everyone else would prefer the question you're asking to be "how to start the revolution when the vibes are off"; explanations on how best to not fight the ways everything is going to shit are explanations of how to be complicit with it. For example, buying into the company message while privately criticizing it---good job advice, but morally, that's cowardice; it's pathetic; that's the behavior of a person who is trying to have their cake and eat it too, who's just there for the money; whose friendship is a lie. That's the spineless substitute for leadership we've come to expect in our disappointing world. "Yeah it sucks, it affects me negatively" in private only counts if you are also taking a non-infinitesimal stand against it in public; if your actual moral position comes out in favor of the right thing. Otherwise it is a lie, manipulating your employees to make them feel like they have a friend while not actually sticking up for them.

If everyone felt and acted morally then the place would be forced to improve. Or at minimum, to fire all of you, but they should be forced to actually do that, morally, and suffer the political and economic consequences of doing so. But for that to happen people have to be systematically standing up to them in the first place, saying "do better, or else".

This is an easy reaction to have in an internet forum, and of course it will get a lot of support because it resonates with the rank and file, so you'll naturally get a lot of internet points at places like HN and LinkedIn.

But as you rise in the org chart things get more nuanced and complicated. First, you have to pick your battles. You can stand up for precisely as much as your reputation allows, and in a large corporation that is always pretty small when it comes to ingrained culture or explicit leadership mandates.

Second, business realities and the end of ZIRP are something that a whole generation of software developers have been sheltered from, but is nevertheless a real thing that is not purely a result of greedy management. I started working in 2000, and had a decade under my belt leading teams and becoming CTO of a Web 2.0 era startup before I made as much money as new grads expect to earn today fresh out of school.

I am thankful for that time though, because being in a small company truly flattens and aligns things so every single person understands the business stakes because it's an open book. At scale, leadership empathy and rank and file business understanding inevitably break down, and middle managements job is to satisfice between them as much as possible while still recognizing what pays the bills. Ultimately as an employee of a large company you have to see past the cognitive dissonance and corporate speak, and make a call on whether you believe in the leadership or not. If you don't, then your best bet is to move on, grandstanding for the sake of reputation with the burnt out and the jaded doesn't actually benefit anyone.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease. The rusted wheel that won't spin when the cart moves gets replaced. If every manager refused to act like a good little toady, maybe this strategy would work, but that's not how the prisoners dilemma pans out in the real world.

What are you going to do after the revolution? I'm going to lead poetry readings and design upcycled fashion

When the higher-ups make a bad decision, sure, push back on it. Push back on it with reckless disregard for your job, even. But when pushing back fails, your people either have to accept it or leave, and not all of them want to (or can) leave. Your job then is to help them accept the decision. If you can't or won't do that, your only moral option left is to leave yourself.

> But I and almost everyone else would prefer the question you're asking to be "how to start the revolution when the vibes are off"

The fish rots from the head. You don't start a revolution within a corporate structure, because you effectively have zero power in any sufficiently large organization with sufficiently bad leadership.

In fact I remember now that I have had a manager who followed this exact advice: they'd agree with you about what was right and wrong in private, but do nothing, or very little, in public. It was infuriating. I didn't quit over it, although I wish I had in hindsight; instead I stayed uninspired and frustrated and burnt out until the manager eventually cycled out for another. But my guess is the team was half as productive or less than it would have been if the manager had stuck up for them in public. There is really nothing as demoralizing as when none of the people with power stick up for you. Of course, they will say that they don't have power either---but that's the trick. Everyone up the chain says they have no power, they're just following orders; the decision making is abstracted from on high. It is always a lie: everyone has power; just, the power is proportional to the risk you take to use it. I should have threatened to quit over being treated better, and meant it, and the manager should have threatened to quit to their bosses over the same things, and everyone else up the stack.

(Of course, an organization where your only way of getting listened to is threatening to quit is already unimaginably toxic. A healthy organization has a moral code of its own: you should be listened to because you were mistreated, not because you had to threaten something to be heard. But this seems to be increasingly untrue in modern tech companies where everyone seems amoral and just does their job and tries not to rock the boat so they can get to their next stock grant.)

Yeah. Be the fearless revolution leader in a corporation during a tricky job market era and not only you'll be fired, your subordinates, by association, will be tagged as radioactive material.

Some of us have bills to pay.