This feels like more of a problem of incentives than it does of failed leadership. The incentive of leaders is often to continue to make money - they are, after all, responsible to who owns the...
This feels like more of a problem of incentives than it does of failed leadership. The incentive of leaders is often to continue to make money - they are, after all, responsible to who owns the company or who gets to call the shots. Usually this is a board of directors, and this board cares about lining their pockets and getting a return on their investment. They do not care about how this happens... people are ultimately replaceable (and quite easily replaceable I might add as there are close to no repercussions for removing someone) and if someone disagrees or does not do what you want to maximize profits you get rid of them and put someone in who shares your ideals. These same incentives often apply when it comes to governmental leadership (through means of corruption or towing the party line).
The reality is that you need organizations to fight on behalf of the individuals; you need someone to provide a strong counter-incentive to purely maximizing profits in order to fight on behalf of the common man. Often times this comes through the lens of a union or governmental regulation, but there are many ways to promote and advocate on behalf of the individuals within an organization. Without this incentive, however, people will always be easily replaceable and when they are there's ultimately no reason to not simply churn through individuals until you get the ones you want to push for profits and ignore everything else.
This feels like more of a problem of incentives than it does of failed leadership. The incentive of leaders is often to continue to make money - they are, after all, responsible to who owns the company or who gets to call the shots. Usually this is a board of directors, and this board cares about lining their pockets and getting a return on their investment. They do not care about how this happens... people are ultimately replaceable (and quite easily replaceable I might add as there are close to no repercussions for removing someone) and if someone disagrees or does not do what you want to maximize profits you get rid of them and put someone in who shares your ideals. These same incentives often apply when it comes to governmental leadership (through means of corruption or towing the party line).
The reality is that you need organizations to fight on behalf of the individuals; you need someone to provide a strong counter-incentive to purely maximizing profits in order to fight on behalf of the common man. Often times this comes through the lens of a union or governmental regulation, but there are many ways to promote and advocate on behalf of the individuals within an organization. Without this incentive, however, people will always be easily replaceable and when they are there's ultimately no reason to not simply churn through individuals until you get the ones you want to push for profits and ignore everything else.