A classic case of goal subordination, a
standard topic in courses in organizational
behavior and/or public administration.

So, the definition of goal subordination is
an employee acting in a way that helps them
but hurts the company. That is, the goal of
helping the company is subordinated to, that is,
made less important than, the goal of helping
the person engaging in goal subordination.

In the case of the OP, it was not nearly just
the fired employee who was hurt but 2-3 levels
of management above that employee, the whole
company, Bezos, and the stockholders.

Gee, some parts of the roll out were not
ready on time! Like this is the first time
in projects? Gee, even for the pyramids,
the project leaders needed enough in workers,
food, stone cutting tools, wood, rope, etc. --
lack of any one of these inputs could stop
the whole leaders whole project. That's
part of what we now call materials requirements
planning, right, MRP. And for getting all
the parts ready on time, there is methodology
for that, in part, an application of linear
programming with critical paths, etc. US
aerospace got good at such things. So, that
little project at Amazon fumbled the ball on
having the ad parts ready? They hired the
people straight out of what, kindergarten?

And, after the project went forward, Amazon
sent in a staff group, in an independent part
of the organization, to analyze what went
right/wrong? In Tunisia, Ike did that after
Kasserine and the other battles in the
Tunisian campaign, and soon Rommel was
permanently back
in Berlin, and the Allies had captured
about 300,000 Axis soldiers and driven
the Axis out of North Africa, from
Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, to
Egypt and the Suez Canal.

Apparently in the US Army, such analysis of what
happened is called an after-action review,
e.g., as at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After-action_review

not nearly new stuff, and Amazon
should be able to do well with
such a process.

Managing, planning, executing, reviewing
projects is not nearly new stuff; Amazon
just blew it. Not so good for Bezos.

The most serious sources of goal subordination
are middle management: The worker bees
don't have enough power seriously to hurt
the company, and the work of the C-level
guys is too visible to the CEO and the BoD.

It's totally dumb for the company to have
HR blindly back middle management possibly
engaged in goal subordination, playing
politics to "look good" while, really,
making a mess, etc. E.g., she was messing
up and reported to a guy who knew her
resume was wrong -- can anyone guess what
might have been going on here? I mean,
anyone who at least went through junior high?
Bezos made it through junior high, right?

Also there needs to be a company culture of
honesty, hard work, good ideas, etc. For
such a culture, need to be sure that a
middle manager won't dump on a subordinate
who does really good work.

A lot is known about how to manage, e.g.,
to reduce goal subordination.

For the employee who got fired, when I get
around to needing a guy to work with
major advertisers, I'll consider him in a
millisecond. "Black list"? Sure, fine
with me; the other companies can black list
him while I hire him!

But he might sue
my company? If my company messed up as
badly as it appears Amazon did, then he
should sue us; if he didn't, that would be
against him. I'd hope that we wouldn't
mess up like that.

Yes, that ad guy might report some really
great successes to me. Okay, I mean, terrific,
if they are
real. Of course, I'd also get independent
confirmation, say, directly from appropriate
people at the company paying for the ads.
If he did really well, then, sure, presto,
bingo, bonus time, say, early in December.

I know; I know; this idea of such a bonus
doesn't go along with the Ben Horowitz
lecture, just yesterday or some such, in Sam's
course, right? Sorry, Ben. The US military
can give battlefield promotions, decorations,
etc., so I'll be willing to hand out a
December bonus.

If the ad guy didn't do so well, then have a project
to understand why and do better the next time.
If he needs to go to a week long seminar
"How to Be a Good Ad Exec 101", and it's actually
a useful seminar, then fine. If he can't really
do the job, then help him learn to do his job.

Why might he not be able to do his job? One reason:
He worked really hard on some of his last jobs
while the world changed. So, e.g., he needs
to get caught up on, say, the business of
mobile ads. Okay;
let him get caught up.

Notice I said he's an "ad guy" and not
an "Ad Exec". I just want him to do his
job and not hang on titles that can cause
problems (here Ben was roughly correct).

And the manager? Largely to heck with
that nonsense: In a good university,
usually a
department chair doesn't get to rule over
the professors as if they were subordinate
worker bees. Instead, the chair does some
coordination, etc., and the job is not
always coveted and not necessarily a
promotion!

Basic fact: Each instance of good work
is first done between just one pair
of ears. Sorry 'bout that. For
a team, all the good work is of just
this kind. What we really want now is
just such good work. For the routine
coordination, etc. can leave that to
managers, but that is inferior work.
E.g., the coordination needed to get
all the pieces done on time for the
big roll out is work that was done
at least back to the pyramids and, thus,
has to be regarded as routine.

Some of this is controversial? Yup.
YMMV. Sorry 'bout that.