3 ms·

Wouldn't the companies that allow this "managerial diversion" quickly fall behind competitors that did not allow it? Companies also have different ratios of ma

Wouldn't the companies that allow this "managerial diversion" quickly fall behind competitors that did not allow it? Companies also have different ratios of managers to employees. If managers drag down productivity wouldn't you expect to see much flatter orgs in successful companies.

jltsiren 5y ago
The market only cares about aggregate performance. If every company has its own set of problems that are difficult to fix, the situation is stable. Especially if the market is dominated by a small number of companies, which makes it unlikely that anyone manages to fix their hard problems.
sjtindell 5y ago
I feel like flat orgs are a resounding success. Valve comes to mind. Netflix to a degree.
wpietri 5y ago
Only to the extent that a) there is direct competition sufficient for this to make a difference, and b) bad management isn't an endemic problem across wide swathes of American business. But there are widespread concerns about declining competition. [1] And some, me included, see American business culture as captured by managerialism. [2] By your theory, all companies should be pretty efficient and managers pretty effective. But how many people would say that about their companies? If that's how most of your friends talk about their bosses, let me know where they live and I'll move there. One good example to look at here is the notion of bullshit jobs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs [1] E.g.: https://hbr.org/2018/03/is-lack-of-competition-strangling-the-u-s-economy https://hbr.org/2018/03/is-lack-of-competition-strangling-th... [2] This is a good book on the topic: https://www.amazon.com/Confronting-Managerialism-Business-Economic-Controversies/dp/178032071X https://www.amazon.com/Confronting-Managerialism-Business-Ec...
- aeternum 5y ago
  From bullshit jobs it looks like 37% of some surveyed Britons thought that their jobs did not contribute 'meaningfully' to the world. So that means the vast majority do think they contribute meaningfully. Most people I know do seem to like their manager, if they don't they switch jobs. But tech jobs are also plentiful here (SV).
- colechristensen 5y ago
  About half the places I’ve worked did fail and the other half didn’t have competition adequate enough to cause failure. Once you achieve a certain amount of success and market share success stops being driven strongly by quality fast execution and you can spend decades in a slow decline unless you’re lucky enough to have a disrupter targeting you which you can usually just buy. Employ a lot of people to inefficiently maintain what you already have and you’ll be fine for a good long time. A lot of this work doesn’t need to be done but nobody gets a promotion for doing more with a smaller team. It’s like the problem with the Navy buying ships, big ones are less useful and more vulnerable but captains and admirals feel more important with bigger ships and drive decisions that way. A lot of what happens is to make middle management more money, look more important, and keep busy.
Frost1x 5y ago
This assumes that competition exists and self-regulates, it doesn't (always, or much in later states of a system), contrary to a lot of economic theory that's peddled as fact by those who benefit the most from it.

jltsiren 5y ago

The market only cares about aggregate performance. If every company has its own set of problems that are difficult to fix, the situation is stable. Especially if the market is dominated by a small number of companies, which makes it unlikely that anyone manages to fix their hard problems.

sjtindell 5y ago

I feel like flat orgs are a resounding success. Valve comes to mind. Netflix to a degree.

wpietri 5y ago

Only to the extent that a) there is direct competition sufficient for this to make a difference, and b) bad management isn't an endemic problem across wide swathes of American business. But there are widespread concerns about declining competition. [1] And some, me included, see American business culture as captured by managerialism. [2] By your theory, all companies should be pretty efficient and managers pretty effective. But how many people would say that about their companies? If that's how most of your friends talk about their bosses, let me know where they live and I'll move there. One good example to look at here is the notion of bullshit jobs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs [1] E.g.: https://hbr.org/2018/03/is-lack-of-competition-strangling-the-u-s-economy https://hbr.org/2018/03/is-lack-of-competition-strangling-th... [2] This is a good book on the topic: https://www.amazon.com/Confronting-Managerialism-Business-Economic-Controversies/dp/178032071X https://www.amazon.com/Confronting-Managerialism-Business-Ec...

aeternum 5y ago
From bullshit jobs it looks like 37% of some surveyed Britons thought that their jobs did not contribute 'meaningfully' to the world. So that means the vast majority do think they contribute meaningfully. Most people I know do seem to like their manager, if they don't they switch jobs. But tech jobs are also plentiful here (SV).
colechristensen 5y ago
About half the places I’ve worked did fail and the other half didn’t have competition adequate enough to cause failure. Once you achieve a certain amount of success and market share success stops being driven strongly by quality fast execution and you can spend decades in a slow decline unless you’re lucky enough to have a disrupter targeting you which you can usually just buy. Employ a lot of people to inefficiently maintain what you already have and you’ll be fine for a good long time. A lot of this work doesn’t need to be done but nobody gets a promotion for doing more with a smaller team. It’s like the problem with the Navy buying ships, big ones are less useful and more vulnerable but captains and admirals feel more important with bigger ships and drive decisions that way. A lot of what happens is to make middle management more money, look more important, and keep busy.

Frost1x 5y ago

This assumes that competition exists and self-regulates, it doesn't (always, or much in later states of a system), contrary to a lot of economic theory that's peddled as fact by those who benefit the most from it.