• Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    I suspect it’s a mix of both.

    On one hand and as you say more tenured people cost more and hence if they go, there is a bigger positive impact on the company’s bottom line, on the other hand the upper management often do know that it is highly likely to end up causing massive problems that easilly ofset those cost savings, only they expect that they themselves personally will have moved onwards to a better job by the time things blow up and “it will be somebody else’s problem”.

    In fact a lot of the problems in modern management (enshittification, cutting down on support, just coasting along on previously earned brand reputation whilst cutting down on quality, outsourcing and so on) can be explained by this “the company saves money now, I get more bonus and when problems from this come due I’ll have moved to better pastures and it will be somebody else’s problem” mindset in upper management - burn the Company’s Future for immediate personal gains in the form of higher bonuses because that manager’s Future is not the same as the Company’s Future.

    I don’t think most upper management are stupid, I think most are just malicious sociopaths with not a shred of Ethics and hence are knowingly playing the flaws in the rewards systems of modern publicly traded companies for personal gain.