Despite lemmy thinking CEOs are useless, they’re usually the most important person in the company because they set the tone. That tone rolls downhill. Show me happy or sad employees, I’ll tell you what kind of leadership they have.
Bezos set the grind culture when Amazon was starting, and that’s fine for a startup, what has to be done. But he never backed off, and now we get shit like this, 100% on him.
Sometimes you have to grind at a shit job to work your way up, I get it. But there appears to be no level at Amazon where you’re not under the gun.
But why should anyone have to grind at a shit job? If your business can only survive by grinding people down, maybe society would be better off without it. If the only way we can get same day delivery is over the burnt-out, permanently injured ex-employees of a multi-national, is it really worth it? Maybe that start-up never should have made it. Maybe strong labor laws should have forced them to scale back their ambitions or close their doors.
I don’t wanna just say “this”, but for real, excellently put.
“But we just have to abuse people for a little while until…”
Then it’s not a viable business model. Easy as that.
Cooperatives are a thing, and they work, they just don’t scale like cancer by generating hype-funding over destroying their employees, so they don’t drum up so much excitement from the moneyed.
If they were deemed useless, they wouldn’t become a target. The useless phrasing is more that their direction for the purpose of the company is useless overall. Line goes up isn’t always a reflection of how well the company is doing for itself and its customers. You are right that CEOs usually set how the company runs, as my work a few years ago transitioned to a new CEO after decades of the first, and it’s showing. What’s frustrating is when they continue to play off that they are the same company and policy to keep morale up, but it’s obvious things are different.
Despite lemmy thinking CEOs are useless, they’re usually the most important person in the company because they set the tone. That tone rolls downhill. Show me happy or sad employees, I’ll tell you what kind of leadership they have.
Bezos set the grind culture when Amazon was starting, and that’s fine for a startup, what has to be done. But he never backed off, and now we get shit like this, 100% on him.
Sometimes you have to grind at a shit job to work your way up, I get it. But there appears to be no level at Amazon where you’re not under the gun.
But why should anyone have to grind at a shit job? If your business can only survive by grinding people down, maybe society would be better off without it. If the only way we can get same day delivery is over the burnt-out, permanently injured ex-employees of a multi-national, is it really worth it? Maybe that start-up never should have made it. Maybe strong labor laws should have forced them to scale back their ambitions or close their doors.
I don’t wanna just say “this”, but for real, excellently put.
“But we just have to abuse people for a little while until…”
Then it’s not a viable business model. Easy as that.
Cooperatives are a thing, and they work, they just don’t scale like cancer by generating hype-funding over destroying their employees, so they don’t drum up so much excitement from the moneyed.
If they were deemed useless, they wouldn’t become a target. The useless phrasing is more that their direction for the purpose of the company is useless overall. Line goes up isn’t always a reflection of how well the company is doing for itself and its customers. You are right that CEOs usually set how the company runs, as my work a few years ago transitioned to a new CEO after decades of the first, and it’s showing. What’s frustrating is when they continue to play off that they are the same company and policy to keep morale up, but it’s obvious things are different.