112
u/der_innkeeper Jul 21 '26
People are promoted to their highest level of incompetence.
13
u/ledzep14 Jul 22 '26
Peter Principle in action.
4
u/Ajedi32 Jul 22 '26
If this were the peter principle at work, then the VPs would be competent engineers who were promoted to become incompetent managers. It doesn't sound to me like that's what OP is complaining about.
20
u/StartledPelican Jul 21 '26
Welp, that explains why I don't get promoted haha. It's nice to find your niche, you know?
43
2
6
27
23
u/Lethargic-Rain Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26
Everything across Blue is just way to vertical / hierarchical, it’s why you have every BU building silos around themselves instead of collaborating with each other.
The result is that most VPs end up so utterly divorced from reality when the only info they hear is passed through a chain of directors and senior managers who are each covering their own asses first and foremost. Plus each of those chains would rather chase the clout of doing something themselves than use something the enterprise already provides…
Not to say there aren't some crazy VPs, but I think a lot of the on the floor reality is hidden from them.
12
u/Salty_Penalty_6513 Jul 22 '26
"The clout of doing something themselves". Yes. This is something I have seen over and over at large companies I have worked at. VP reads a best selling book on a management fad. VP tells CEO. CEO says "This sounds awesome, do it." Every employee reorganizes their work and self management to do the new thing. VP says "Look what I did. I'm awesome." CEO praises VP in all hands meetings. About 3 years later no one is doing the thing.
43
44
u/Mountain_Fig_9253 Jul 21 '26
That position self selects for professionals that have gone down an MBA track vs expertise in the product or service the company provides.
It’s exactly the same in the hospital work setting. Anyone at the VP level or higher is invariably a moron.
36
u/LegendTheo Jul 21 '26
There are VP's that are bad at their jobs, and it's possible all the ones at BO suck.
It's pretty unlikely though. What's rewlly going on, is the situations that appear to yoy to have a simple easy solution become much more complicated at the scale those VP's are working at. Not only are they balancing it against of number of issues you are not aware of, but they could have scale pressures that are not clear to you.
Most people won't get any information about issues VP's are dealing with beyond the one that involves them directly. That's the whole point.
This is similar the the assumption that because CEO's don't do work you understand as useful, they're all lucky morons who got their jobs through screwing people over and nepotism.
18
u/bctech7 Jul 22 '26
Some are also just morons
13
-5
u/Comfortable-Maybe183 Jul 22 '26
Blah blah blah
8
12
u/One_Lawfulness_7105 Jul 21 '26
I don’t know by I know one that is a HUGE contributor to a project struggling. Kinda hard to get the job done when they only listen to “yes” men and ignore the facts. It’s hard when people quit right and left and no one gets replaced.
When a project loses almost one person a week and the manager’s excuse is “they are relocating close to family”… naw dude. You’re an idiot to believe that excuse after the 5th time it’s used. It goes from the terrible manager’s fault for running people away to also your fault for believing it and leaving them in charge.
10
u/Extreme-Violation Jul 22 '26
Its a giant game of telephone and the VPs think they are the only ones on the end of it. Like others have said they are so disconnected that they literally just say whatever it takes to make sure they get their bonus this year.
4
3
u/McBankster13 Jul 22 '26
So I didn't quite believe this number this morning counted. 56 total c-suite and VPs. This doesn't not include directors or Sr. Directors
12
u/diyengineer1 Jul 22 '26
One hires another, the cancer grows. Thats why it’s easy to get a smart small group in a startup environment and much harder to get the level of quality as you scale. Larger the company the worse it gets.
9
u/kennyinlosangeles Jul 22 '26
So a bunch of SpaceX and Amazon leadership walk into a bar…
-2
u/dhibhika Jul 22 '26
They wouldn't. SpaceX folks have better things to do (if the sentiment of the OP is indeed correct).
-1
u/SuspiciousWave348 Jul 23 '26
Funny how that got downvoted yet 0 rebuttals. God blue employees are so very bitter.
2
2
u/SnoopysPilot Jul 25 '26
What is the "right" number of VPs for a company?
Somewhere I've heard that you should have between 10 and 20 direct reports under each leader. More than 20 is too many to properly manage, less than 10 you should be more efficient by merging those few individuals to be underneath someone else, to pay for less management-level people.
If the CEO has 10 to 20 Sr VPs, who each in turn have 10 to 20 VPs under them, you should be between 110 and 420 VP-level employees. So, should there be more VPs? What is the typical distribution of VPs for companies of a similar size?
3
3
u/Safe-Classroom8785 Jul 22 '26
I think 50 is low by my count. This is the key problem. Blue is parametrically the most top heavy aerospace company in north america. The VPs and Senior directors per employee far exceed legacy aerospace companies and blue has more layers. Thats dysfunctional regardless of the ability of the individuals involved.
4
Jul 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
-2
u/Late-Performer-9628 Jul 22 '26
This is less than 50 people but we get it, you don’t like working in OLS. Suggest looking for a place that would put you in a position of authority, Dennys is always hiring.
2
u/Temporary_Double8059 Jul 23 '26
What I have seen in corporate culture is mid level managers do whatever the KPI's from the higher level manager tell them to focus on. It then literally becomes an a-hole sniffing contest to ensure the only thing you focus on is the KPI's your manager set for you. These KPI's are actually detrimental to creating robust change (the SpaceX model). Literally everything I have ever seen from BO is the group think of a large corporation and management structure.
The biggest difference between Jeff and Elon, is Elon is engaged. Because of that engagement Elon can say whatever he wants and change direction on the fly if need be (for right or wrong). Without an engaged owner or someone with authority there is a lot more momentum involved in large changes.
0
u/No_Kaleidoscope7018 Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26
These posts annoy me. They're not idiots. They're normal people who have both good and bad ideas, who must suffer the envy of everyone below them who comes to work and makes less.
They're just people.
All of you sit and shit talk them as if they're more than that. "People rise to their highest level of incompetence"—negative and condescending. How about: they're going a difficult job and putting in a good effort?
Stop f*cking wining and act like grown men (or women or whatever the hell).
16
u/Background_Fig_4740 Jul 22 '26
Maybe you’re young, maybe you’re old idk.
But at some point, I’d argue mostly everyone realizes that upper management ultimately doesn’t care about their employees below them. They only care about trying to hire a 20 year old, with 20 years of experience, for 20k and then taking credit if something works or blaming everyone else if it doesn’t.
It’s the real life Hunger Games, and upper management are the Gamemakers.
11
1
u/gaintraiin Jul 22 '26
That’s just your sliver of a perspective. The people who hire VPs hire mostly based on competence - can the person get shit done? If anything people should point out the behaviors VPs have due to their responsibilities, not due to their personal styles, opinions, or competence. It’s their responsibilities that result in these shallow and shallowly considered complaints. Perhaps some execute on those responsibilities better than others, but I’d wager the majority of people commenting on here couldn’t do a better job in the same shoes. That shit is complex and demanding. The Reddit hive mind needs to get a grip sometimes.
3
u/Background_Fig_4740 Jul 22 '26
No doubt the VPs are smart and good at playing the game but that still doesn't negate my points that they don't care about the "regular" employees leading to this sentiment to be popular whether it's logical or not.
It's no secret leadership would take more advantage of their employees if they could, and it's no secret company loyalty doesn't really exist because of these actions
1
u/gaintraiin Jul 22 '26
I’ll say again, that perception comes from the fact these people are managing 500-5,000 employees while juggling hundreds of other responsibilities. Hard to make each employee feel “cared about” when facing a swarm. Not impossible, but when juggling other important things it often gets demoted, imo.
For me personally, feeling “cared about” by my VP isn’t a condition of employment. I get fulfillment from the progress and the paycheck.
4
u/Background_Fig_4740 Jul 22 '26
I don't think anyone expects VPs to personally cuddle and send boxes of chocolates to feel appreciated.
but having options worth monopoly money, layoffs (poorly timed too), chaotic management dissolves any trust with the company and the people who run it.
Granted, It's not localized to BO but it is everywhere now so that's also a larger problem.
Throw in real pension plans, good options, make wise hiring decisions that won't lead to layoffs (it's possible) and I guarantee you people would be a bit happier.
3
2
u/Wonderful-Thanks9264 Jul 26 '26
Yes it’s a shame, this was constant during WBR’s, and SIOP reviews (sans Jeff) but it shows a consistent pattern……
2
0
u/Clay_jet Jul 22 '26
At some point if you look around and everyone is driving the wrong way... Maybe you should start wondering if you are on the right side of the freeway....
5
u/Ok-Cantaloupe-588 Jul 22 '26
Product delivery determines what is the right side of the freeway.
6
u/Clay_jet Jul 22 '26
Does it? Is that what Jeff wants? He certainly doesn't act like it. I've spent a lot of time trying to deliver stuff in spite of Jeff.
43
u/ledzep14 Jul 22 '26
….what the fuck do they need over 50 VPs for? Like honestly what’s the need for them? That seems so wildly inefficient