4 ms·
I am pretty sure that you can improve the productivity of almost all companies by firing half of middle management and using the money saved to hire skilled peo
by deterministic 4y ago
I am pretty sure that you can improve the productivity of almost all companies by firing half of middle management and using the money saved to hire skilled people who do the actual work.
The most productive and successful company I worked for have zero middle management (150+ staff). The worst most dysfunctional company I have worked for had more middle managers than software developers (50+ staff).
- sinenomine 4y agoThis might even work, but see how much poison Elon Musk got out of his attempt? For this guild these careers are their lifeblood, and the process of minting these (I.e. ensuring the pathway for leeching from fortune500 profits exists for eternity) is a sacred, maybe even inherited, secret. Any interruption of this dynamic is sacrilege and they will fight tooth and nail to discourage anyone who tries. There needs something to be done here, but it won't be easy. Those who will approach this lightly will perish.
- therealdrag0 4y agoThose are pretty small companies. Imo discussions at that scale should be separate than mega corps; though people leverage the same criticism at both. It seems like bureaucracy is at worst inevitable and at best actually provides a lot of competitive value. For example has there ever been a successful empire without a strong bureaucracy? And aren’t mega corps just modern empires?
- deterministic 4y agoI think it works the same whether it is a small company or an empire. The key is the bureaucracy to worker ratio. You need just enough bureaucracy to glue things together. But anything more than that starts being counter productive. In my examples the productive company had a bureaucracy/staff ratio of close to 0. The dysfunctional company had a bureaucracy/staff ratio of more than 2. Enough said.