berg117

Every company has an invisible line, like the officer/enlisted distinction in militaries, but always undocumented for obvious reasons. Above it are the real humans whom the company cares about; below it are the "resources". ICs are always below the line, except in R&D jobs that aren't available without a top-10 PhD... but most managers are also below the line.

Above the line, you basically write your own performance review because the bosses are your buddies. Below the line, it's miserable, and as you said you're one delay or mistake away from being sent to the Performance Improvement Camps. Almost all first-level managers in a company of significant size (25+ people) are below the line and spend just as much time on humiliating work justification (e.g., status reports) as the guys at the bottom.

What's amazing about corporate is that, when you get together years later and the truth comes out because everyone has moved on, you realize how much everyone really hated their jobs. There are some true-believing useful idiots out there, but I'd guess that 80% of people see corporate for what it is--they're just not allowed to make it known that they do. It's reminiscent of that time people applauded Stalin for 11 minutes because no one wanted to risk being the first one to stop clapping.

As a worker, you're at least allowed to grumble a little bit. As a middle manager, you're a full-time actor. You have to implement the will of some truly awful people and pretend to have no moral objections whatsoever.

Some middle managers truly are pricks and petty tyrants, but my observation is that most of them are just forced to pretend to be that way, becoming the face of horrible decisions so the execs can be loved by the masses. Your boss doesn't want to be a micromanaging cunt--he has to pretend to be one, because he's a rubber glove for executives.

It also confirmed my negative views of upper management and capitalism. Growing up, I had always felt that the left-wing view of corporate executives as worthless, evil parasites whom society would be better without was an exaggeration, or a negative depiction derived from a mix of envy and the "bad apple" effect. Nope. I've sat in enough meetings and heard how upper-level executives talk about their workers to realize that the "haters" were dead right all along. Half of these people in upper management deserve to be guillotined; the other half are not so severely awful, but are spineless or ineffective at doing anything to oppose the horrible culture.

As a middle manager you have the choice to parrot the upper management crap, or tell it like it is. Neither is great.

Yeah, this conflict of interest is the worst. Do what's right, and you're risking your livelihood, while not really helping the people beneath you. Lie for executives' benefit (i.e., be the face of their bad decisions, so the execs can be loved) and it corrodes your soul, but at least you stay employed.

The funny thing is that corporate capitalism is now indistinguishable from the Soviet system at its worst. We are in Kazakhstan 1987 right now. The only difference is that we pay two orders of magnitude more for these shithead bureaucrats than the most corrupt SSRs ever did.

This is not limited to capitalist bureaucracies, of course--the most dysfunctional corners of the Soviet system were eerily similar--but it is arguably most pronounced in the corporate world, because there is no purpose for these hierarchies existing, or indeed no purpose for most of these companies at all except to make money for a small number of people whom there is no good reason to care about.

The WHO is right. Burnout isn't a medical problem or classical mental illness. It is a rational response to living under a socioeconomic system that has no right to exist.

(1) people who make their bosses look bad are first to go.

(2) next are people who are perceived to cost their bosses time, regardless of whether it's their fault.

(3) after that, it's usually the infanticide cases: i.e., the people who did nothing wrong but haven't been there long enough to establish themselves.

The infanticide is especially ugly, because (a) it means the company is firing people basically at random, and (b) it rapes the shit out of the resumes of the people affected, because they now have <1 year jobs to explain. The reason it happens is that, empirically, most of the people cut in mass stack-rank purges are new members of underperforming teams... who, by inspection, have had the least to do with the team's underperformance.

Underperformance does get people fired, but rarely. It's at least as likely to get someone promoted, because underperformers usually have a career's worth of experience of being shitty, and therefore have developed such political skills they can easily fail up every time.

That's how tech companies usually do layoffs. Rather than admit they overexpanded and have to cut people (or that they are cannibalizing their own people to boost executive compensation) they blame it on departing workers by increasing the PIP-rape cutoff.

Wage earners have a couple percent more dollars every year, but the rich have massively more dollars. This is basically clathrate-gun inflation, insofar as while it's true that the rich don't compete for, say, food staples and therefore the illicitly printed money is often considered "harmless"... it goes into investment, which is a different market, we are told... the rich can and given the right circumstances will compete for other things people need, such as housing (see: Blackrock's invasion of residential real estate).

If you look at the S&P denoted in, say, houses... which I've chosen because housing is most people's biggest expense, it's actually been a mediocre market, the past 20 years.

----

[1] There won't actually be "back to normal". Just as 9/11 World didn't really end but blended into GFC World, which blended into Covid World... this one's going to blend into either European War World (if the current situation gets worse) or Climate Change World. The upper class will always need a crisis to hold over our heads (and, of course, several of these represent real crises that the upper classes did not intentionally create) to keep power.

People they want to keep will be able to continue WFH if they want. People who are on the margins or destined for the Performance Improvement Camps will have to come in and warm seats if they want to eke out a year or two more of existence.

It's not that they're trying to "get away with absolutely anything". It's that their survival incentive is not to get fired, and they've been operating in that mode for years if not decades. The less you do, the less likely you are to inadvertently piss someone off and lose your job. Overperformers get fired faster than underperformers, who can usually kick around in the system for years.

Take a risk and win, and your boss makes more money. Take a risk and lose, and your income drops by 100%. The incentive structure rewards doing as little as possible, and that's not even necessarily a bad thing, because there are organizational situations in which it's better for people to be underutilized than overtaxed and therefore unpredictable.

Capitalism is an abusive system, but there's no escape because the legal system is on the abuser's side. How do you survive an abuser, if you can't get away? You become meek, reactive, and passive.

Remote work isn't for everyone, and unfortunately there is a non-trivial percentage of the workforce that actual does need someone watching over them to make sure they do what they are supposed to be doing each day.

They weren't getting much done in the office, either. In fact, in the office regime, the problem employees were interfering with other people's productivity. In the WFH world, they do less damage.

Maybe not. In the corporate world, 90% of work is work that was generated by other work. Some people are really good at not causing work for other people.

Pls don't say FANG (or MANG or whatever). People I know at the senior level work really hard too (from my peers).

They spend a lot of hours but they don't really accomplish that much. The thing about FAANGs is that above the $250k line, it's all politics. If you're any good at the game, you figure out that you'll always do better using political position to take credit for someone else's work than taking the chance of your own labor (how much can one person do?) being appreciated.

Always get a team if you can: it diversifies your apparent contribution to the company.