5 ms·

Now you're describing an implementation that is disruptive to the majority of employees "on the ground" and only worthwhile to the top-level stakeholders. Only

Now you're describing an implementation that is disruptive to the majority of employees "on the ground" and only worthwhile to the top-level stakeholders. Only the top-level stakeholders felt the results were worthwhile the disruption and pain -- that they did not suffer. But have you ever heard of one going well ? As in, not just worthwhile to a tiny minority of the people on the top? Yeah I bet it makes stuff more efficient, but clearly there's a disparity between the people suffering "disruptions and pain" and the ones who ultimately feel it has been worthwhile.

Nemi 6y ago
Another way to look at it is, the top-level stakeholders are responsible for the business and not just themselves or the lives of their employees. An effective leader is thinking about what is best for the business. Not just themselves or any one part of the business. And maybe, just maybe, what is right for the business is bad for the majority of the staff. At least in the short term. I know that is a bitter pill to swallow, but it is reality.
- eru 6y ago
  > And maybe, just maybe, what is right for the business is bad for the majority of the staff. At least in the short term. I know that is a bitter pill to swallow, but it is reality. Perhaps an example more palatable on HN would be Uber replacing all its drivers with software. Clearly better for the business.