[asveikau]

Even from the selfish perspectives of these executives, it can be quite bad to isolate people from the consequences of bad decisions. It will prevent learning from mistakes, and lead to more bad decisions.

Which I guess is getting at another thing. The failure was predictable. People shouldn't be rewarded for failing to avoid obvious predictable failures. Maintaining their status quo could also be seen as rewarding them.

[toomuchtodo]

If you're unwilling to fall on your sword and face material consequences for decisions that cause quantifiable harm the people who work for you or your customers, you do not belong in a leadership position imho, but that isn't where we are today. The people making these decisions will face no consequences for the harm they cause. Its likely they continue to be employed and receive generous compensation.

Workers get fired when they are wrong at much smaller scale, why not these people? They are not special, they are simply lucky and connected.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42639566 ("Pharaoh must signal, to shareholders, to a board, and to their peers. There will be no consequences for failure to adhere to this proclamation.")

Salesforce will hire no more software engineers in 2025, says Marc Benioff - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42639417 - January 2025 (390 comments)

https://www.salesforce.com/company/careers/jobs/?search=soft... (724 results, as of this comment)

[jm4]

Not getting fired is not the same as isolation from consequences. People who make rational decisions and achieve results get opportunities to make more impactful decisions. People who don't get results don't get more opportunities - or maybe find themselves in a situation where the scope of their decisions (and blast radius) is limited. Firing is for misconduct or when someone has no value to offer. It's more of a spectrum than a binary thing.

I can't speak for how these particular executives were handled. I've never worked at a place where people were quickly fired for mistakes unless it was something extreme. It's usually based on track record rather than a single thing. Most employers understand that if they fired people for making mistakes they would run out of employees very fast. On the other hand, someone who learns from a mistake probably isn't going to do it again so you may have a better employee than a hypothetical replacement. It's also generally understood that people with a large scope of responsibilities have a large blast radius when things don't work out. It just comes with the territory and it's not exclusive to the executive suite.

[asveikau]

> People who don't get results don't get more opportunities

This shows to me that you have a lot of faith in these companies that I can't share based on my own experiences.

My experience is more like: the defining characteristics of what gets you more opportunities is personal attachment to the boss. They like you? You get more. The whole performance review culture, as an example, is based around phony justifications around this. They get to re-define what "getting results" means to favor buddies. This is the only determining factor, period, and people come across to me as absurdly foolish when they believe something else.

[jm4]

I don't have faith in these companies. I don't know how they operate. I know how I operate.

[superxpro12]

We only need to look at the consequences (or lack thereof) from the 2008 financial crisis to understand that there will be no consequences for the corporate class.