[billions]

"No longer can management kick the can down the road on things that many of us wanted to directly address."

so you choose to prioritize your desires over customer needs? what if end users preferred to keep their cash instead of pay for your code refactor of a feature nobody uses?

[lovich]

Does that not apply to management? What if the end users preferred a cheaper product rather than paying out exec bonuses? What if end users preferred a well made product rather than cutting corners to keep costs down?

[billions]

The higher up the hierarchy, the more accountable they are to the customer. If management doesn't increase sales by providing an offering at a competitive price, sales will slump and someone will get fired. This is the opposite of union shops where the manager to employee ratio is much higher because nobody gets fired for being a burden on the customer's wallet.

[lovich]

I think we might come from very different worlds if people higher up the chain are more accountable for customer disgruntlement in your experience.

That being said, I could see your point of view if you were in an org where that was true

[billions]

By your logic an unqualified person could attain the CEO job. The CEO is picked by the shareholders to maximize shareholder value. The top boss is extremely well vetted to make sure they make good decisions to protect shareholders' money. The CEO's #1 job is to hire & fire managers that let him keep his job by increasing sales. And so on down the chain.

How could people at the bottom be more "accountable for customer disgruntlement"? They have less skin in the game than people up the hierarchy.

[lovich]

> By your logic an unqualified person could attain the CEO job.

That’s kind of less my logic and more my lived experience, unless you count being politically connected as the only qualification for CEO’s.

> How could people at the bottom be more "accountable for customer disgruntlement?”

Have you never seen execs grand schemes fail and make up for their mistakes by firing scapegoats or laying off workers and saddling the rest with more work to make the numbers look good?

> They have less skin in the game than people up the hierarchy.

Do they? In my experience workers typically have their entire income stream at risk while execs get golden parachutes and another executive position at a different company despite failing massively. If skin in the game is just “get higher compensation” then why aren’t the richest people on the planet the most environmentally conscious since they have more “skin in the game” than everyone else?

Edit: fixed typo, sassing -> saddling

[spoonjim]

Yes, only highly qualified people attain CEO jobs. You never see any baffling CEO hires who flame out spectacularly taking shareholders and employees down with them.