[cassianoleal]

> It's because they are afraid.

Sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's just because they don't have to make themselves accountable for it because there will be no consequences - if it fails, you get to keep your current position and compensation but also if you succeed you also get to keep those without any gain. In these cases, not making yourself accountable is just the path of least resistance, and one could argue it's the right call for the individual in charge.

> Another fun red flag is vague definition of goals.

100%. I've been on clients where one of the criteria to determine success was "repeatability". When pressed to understand what that means, I could only get further vague and wildly abstract concepts. Nothing measurable, nothing even remotely helpful. Similar things happened for pretty much all other "requirements" we were given.

[sshine]

> not making yourself accountable is just the path of least resistance, and one could argue it's the right call

I’ve been frustrated with colleagues who would just do their job to a point of a project critically failing. But in retrospect, I must say they did the right thing.

Taking heat as an employee should be voluntary, and it should be compensated, and it usually isn’t.

When you see an employee just doing their job, when a lot more is needed, you can trace it to a spineless leader who does not lead by example.

[ryandrake]

> Taking heat as an employee should be voluntary, and it should be compensated, and it usually isn’t.

It must be compensated! At the vast, vast majority of companies, the worker bees' compensation is multiple orders of magnitude lower than leadership's. Why should they shoulder the accountability? When you question these stratospheric executive compensations, one of the retorts is always "Well, they are responsible and accountable so that's why they're paid so much."

Don't feel frustrated with a colleague who doesn't get fired when the project fails. Get frustrated with the executive leader 4 notches up on the totem pole who makes $10M/yr for "being responsible", who gets a bonus when the project fails.

[nitwit005]

At times, people are very insistent on doing the wrong thing. At a certain point as an employee, you have to shrug your shoulders and do what they ask. It's their company.

[lotsOstuf]

> if it fails, you get to keep your current position and compensation

Sounds driven by fear of loss

Human emotions do not have an infinite range unlike our human languages.

Economic stability or the loss of is a primary driver of productivity in our society

[cassianoleal]

> Sounds driven by fear of loss

How can it be fear of loss when there's absolutely no risk of loss?

> Economic stability or the loss of is a primary driver of productivity in our society

Precisely the point I was making.

Generally people don't care about the corporations they work for, so the only motivation to be better is the possibility of better outcomes for them as individuals - or in some cases, to avoid losing what they have (best performers in theory have a better chance to survive a layoff). Note that I'm not making any judgement on whether this is the best way of motivating people - only that it's the one we currently have.

If there's no risk of loss and no recompense to win (i.e. the only possible outcome is to stay exactly where you are regardless of how much or how little effort and accountability you put in the project) doing as little as possible and taking no accountability is just inertia - it's not moved by fear.