I don't really see how naming the specific individual improved the argument, unless there is true malfeasance, like sexual harassment, I don't think it's ethical to publicly name-and-shame somebody for the crime of being bad at their job.

LOTS of people are bad at their job.

She probably makes $10M a year, don’t worry about it.

> I don't really see how naming the specific individual improved the argument

I disagree. Good articles should make specific propositions about specific exemplars. The alternative is to make generalities that are hard to falsify.

Doing so head-on solves the problem faster. Talking directly to someone or about the problem as it is has felt to me like people can understand and act quicker. Less malcontent is felt by those affected by such a person's incompetence.

Capturing the subtleties in such a black/white call-out usually is lost though to the reader/listener. It also doesn't lend to this to do this so publically, for the entire internet.

For a rank and file employee or a line manager, I'd agree with you.

But this is a Director at Google. She has the power to command change and her actions affect 100s of people directly inside Google and likely many thousands using the products of teams under her. They likely draw multi million dollar total comp.

I very much welcome them to be publicly called out on their BS.

It doesn’t really matter as the poster is in the “clueless” cohort of the company and she’s a sociopath. He thinks that the company exists to do whatever he said it was earlier when in fact the sociopaths running it at that time just said that to attract people that can do work to make them rich.

He thinks she is bad at her job and it’s clear she’s not. She know precisely how to move people around to take blame for failures while staying clean and clear to brag about the wins. To the clueless she might look dumb but she’s not at all. She knows how to secure her millions in comp per year and retire early. She’s very smart.

To be fair he seems to be waking up to the fact the sociopaths are in it for themselves, 18 years later.

> He thinks she is bad at her job and it’s clear she’s not.

'At her job' - her job is improving the department.

> She knows how to secure her millions in comp per year and retire early. She’s very smart.

If I had the background, connections and privileges of these several MBA types, I could also do that. But I couldnt perhaps be a great engineer. Therefore I wouldn't share your appreciation of sociopathy, and I believe many people are of similar opinion.

If she doesn’t want to be publicly shamed for being bad at her job she could always try to be good at it.

She probably is trying to be good at it.

She’s failing, hence the call out. You don’t get to quietly fail when you’re raking in millions dictating the work lives of thousands of people.

She's presumably already trying to do a good job. Saying "try to a good job" isn't helpful feedback and isn't assuming good intent.