>he came back from parental leave and his direct reports had all been put on a PIP while he was out
Wow. It’s really difficult to imagine a likely scenario where that’s justified.
Wow. It’s really difficult to imagine a likely scenario where that’s justified.
Not that that is a justification, but it's almost certainly the reason.
https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-tracks-unregretted-at...
Actually, writing this down made me think that big companies (like the FAANG mostly are) are quite anti-capitalistic. I'm not sure how to call them, because sure as hell they're not socialist or anything of the sorts, but it's reasonably clear that many of the theoretical capitalistic principles that many of us know in one way or another do not apply to these economic entities.
A business is a socialist command economy embedded in a market economy, which has odd boundary effects at the interfaces.
One counter-example comes immediately to mind, but mentioning that would cue a whole tedious discussion of "But that is socialism, it's even in the name!" vs "Just because it's in the name doesn't mean it actually is socialism!", so I won't spell it out.
> In particular, businesses really don't fit the definition of socialism.
No, true. As others have mentioned, feudalism ses a better fit.
Because actual capitalism is just the means of production being privately owned and operated for profit. It says nothing about how companies operate or what kind of dystopian politics they might have.
These companies could make competing internal IT groups and datacenters competing for projects and services in the company.
But companies don't like free markets and competition, every company strives to establish monopoly control. Likewise, middle management doesn't like competition, it clouds their promotion paths.