In turgid dithyrambs

The execs… Here's what I don't understand: On one hand, everyone seems to agree that both, the success and failure of an organization are largely determined by its leaders. And when the company is doing well, it is the leaders who see the lion share of the profits. Well, if they're largely responsible for the success, why not? However, when the company is not doing so hot, it's the very same leaders, who get to pick and choose the poor schmoes who'll be laid off; while they themselves remain at the helm, and aren't even penalized much financially.

We just got a new CIO. The guy is in his mid forties. He's been in the executive club for about 10 years. During this time, he's changed jobs four times; roughly two years per company. In my job as a developer, it takes months to learn our various policies and procedures, let alone new technologies. It takes months before an analyst can become effective in his role here. And results from an analyst's or developer's efforts are nearly instantaneous. The strategic results of the CIO's (or other executives') efforts won't be apparent for at least a few years in a company this size (suffice it to say that our company budget rivals that of Belgium). How can an executive be hired when it's damn near impossible to say what, if anything, he was able to accomplish at his previous job?

We're in the process of going through a "simplification" effort. Hundreds are going to be laid off. The leadership team? None! They're all brilliant, effective, courageous professionals, who never fail to deliver! We're about 20% behind our closest competitor in efficiency. Twenty percent! Nope, not a leadership issue! It's the damn grunts costing us all this dough. So, let's get rid of some of the less profitable divisions (more on this later), let's lay off a bunch of people, and our P&L will look like a newly painted wing of a veteran's hospital, - shiny on the outside, shit dripping from the ceilings on the inside. Next year will bring the same exact problems we're facing now. But that's next year! By that time, bonuses will be paid, vesting periods reached, company shares allocated. After all, it's a very large company. Surely, it will perform even better when a couple of other less profitable units will be unloaded, and a few more hundred people laid off. And after that? After that our luminaries will be able to say that under their astute leadership, the company's bottom line has dramatically improved, they have fulfilled their mission, and are ready to take on the new challenges of another enterprise in need of their know how. They'll eagerly contest the proverbial paternity of their failure, even as they mandate ethics seminars for their subordinates, while perorating in turgid dithyrambs on the importance of taking responsibility.

OK, I think I'm done with this for a while.