4 ms·
To play devil's advocate, they could be both ineffective and harmful. Just because they succeeded in getting the company to do something, that not mean it was
by cochne 6y ago
To play devil's advocate, they could be both ineffective and harmful. Just because they succeeded in getting the company to do something, that not mean it was the right thing. The sale of the drugs could have produced a net loss as well as harmed the people who bought them.
- refurb 6y agoIneffective = “having no effect” Harmful = “having a negative effect” How can they be both?
- heavenlyblue 6y agoYou can be effective at selling opiates to people, but then end up in an investigation for selling them illegally and thus neutralising any of the revenue you had initially brought with fines for doing so illegally. Here's no effect. Of course a lot of brutal strategies work well in environments which do not expect them. However trusted environments are often more efficient.
- arrosenberg 6y agoWith a comma? Ineffective doesn't mean no-effect, it means 'not the intended effect'. I.E. "McKinsey worked with Purdue to implement an ineffective business strategy that resulted in bankruptcy for the business, due the harmful nature of the product and the predatory nature of the strategy."
- some_random 6y agoSure, but I would think generating significant amounts of revenue would tilt the probabilities towards "consultants do actually do something".