> The conclusion here is clear: the industry will want different things from you as it evolves, and it will tell you that each of those shifts is because of some complex moral change, but it’s pretty much always about business realities changing. If you take any current morality tale as true, then you’re setting yourself up to be severely out of position when the industry shifts again in a few years, because “good leadership” is just a fad.

Institutional rhetoric at high levels is always meant to manipulate labor markets, financial markets, popular opinion. This is basic worldly-wisdom. The question is how does one (who is not at a high level) survive the recurring institutional changes? There seem to be two approaches to an answer: Do one's professional best regardless of change, or try to anticipate changes and adjust with the wind. For the first, gods may bless you, but it is folly to think your bosses will respect you. For the second -- good luck, you're running with bulls. Either way, the pill to swallow is that most employees including managers are grist to the mill.

▲

WalterBright 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> the pill to swallow is that most employees including managers are grist to the mill

Businesses exist to make money. If you want a commune instead, join one!

▲

Buttons840 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

For many workers, working towards the goal of making the company profitable would be an improvement.

Many workers primarily work towards helping the boss grow their head count, or helping the middle-manager with their emotional state.

	▲	Nextgrid 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's generally a symbiotic relationship though, as the workers grow their own resume while helping their boss grow theirs (and generally the boss is growing his own while helping his boss grow theirs and so on. Sometimes it goes all the way up where even the founder just wants that lifestyle subsidized by investor money and does not care to actually ever build a profitable product). This kind of perverse incentive comes up when the rank and file has no meaningful way to profit off the company's success, and so it instead becomes more profitable (in future profits from the inflated resume, or kickbacks/favors from vendors, etc) to act against the company. Just like in security bug bounties, companies should reward their employees more than an external malicious actor would, otherwise they will choose the rational option.
	▲	NumberCruncher 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Really sharp reasoning. This can be reversed to define an extra ordinary manager: don't care about your head count and just be a fucking grown up who's emotional state does not depend on his team's performance. IMHO this results in having a high head count and a team performing pretty well. Kinda stoic wisdom. Go and figure...
	▲	RealityVoid 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> helping the middle-manager with their emotional state. Hah, this is hilarious. So very "The Office".

▲

stavros 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's not the only reason why businesses can exist. It's the most common reason in US culture, but there are other reasons and cultures.

▲

WalterBright an hour ago | parent [-]

Tell us about a business that does not exist to make money.

	▲	stavros 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		First post: > the pill to swallow is that most employees including managers are grist to the mill Meaning that employees are disposable, and their only purpose is to produce value for the business. Your reply: > Businesses exist to make money. If you want a commune instead, join one! Agreeing that the sole purpose of a business is to make money above all else. My reply: > That's not the only reason why businesses can exist. Your reply: > Tell us about a business that does not exist to make money. This is rhetorical sleight-of-hand to change the counterpoint from "prove me wrong by showing me a business whose purpose is not to maximally exploit employees to maximize the amount of money it makes" to "prove me wrong by showing me a business that does not make money". I could respond to the latter with an easy "some businesses lose money and exist because the owner finds the process fun", but you could counter with the No True Scotsman of "a business that doesn't make money is a hobby, not a business". Instead, I will respond to the former, which is the original point, and say that there are plenty of mom-and-pop (or larger) businesses, as well as cooperatives, whose goals are not actually to exploit the worker to maximize the amount of money they make, but is primarily to give the owners a good work/life balance, or to help their community, or to be owned collectively by all workers. The American-style "walk over anyone to make money" isn't actually the only way to do business, but the kind of person who thinks it is will generally make the tautological argument of "if you aren't maximizing your profits, you aren't a real business".