• andioop
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    As I close off this post, it is worth pointing out a weakness in the hostage taker’s position and motives. In all cases I’ve seen, the individual in question would prefer to maintain their position in the company — they don’t want to be let go, which is one of the reasons they are fighting so hard. That itself is leverage — it means the threat of quitting, which is their main bargaining chip, is a relatively hollow one. It also means a manager who is strong enough can slowly chip away at parts of the tyrant’s empire, giving small pieces to other teams, with no piece large enough to trigger a full-scale revolt. Finally, what is left ends up being so small that if the “brilliant ass-hole” decides to leave, the pain of the loss is minimized.

    There are two things required for this to happen: a manager with a strong enough stomach to do what is necessary, and the willingness on the part of the company to take the risk. Either way there must be someone who cares more about the company’s long-term success than their own career, who is unwilling to let the problem become some future schmoe’s headache. And such people are few and far between.

    ¹ The real names and locations withheld.

    • ck_@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thanks. I read the article, I just wanted to express my general dislike about the choice of platform.