4 ms·

Gary Hamel here. I co-wrote this piece for HBR a few years ago. Since then, the problem of bureaucratic drag has only gotten worse. Our most recent estimate is

Gary Hamel here. I co-wrote this piece for HBR a few years ago. Since then, the problem of bureaucratic drag has only gotten worse. Our most recent estimate is that an excess of bureaucracy and lack of empowerment reduces economic output by $18 trillion dollars per year across the OECD. The average Fortune 500 company has 8 layers of management, and few truly new ideas survive the journey up the chain of command. As per Gallup, only 1 in 5 employees believe their ideas matter at work, and only 1 in 11 are free to experiment with new methods, tools and products. If you want some practical ideas on how to bust bureaucracy, whatever your role or title, check out my book “Humanocracy” (available at Amazon), or “The New Human Movement” video series on YouTube. Love all your comments.

ornornor 4y ago
> If you want some practical ideas on how to bust bureaucracy, whatever your role or title, check out my book “Humanocracy” (available at Amazon), or “The New Human Movement” video series on YouTube. Didn’t know about your book/YT and haven’t read/watched them. That said, isn’t it a very fast road to nowhere and burnout? I’ve tried many times to fix bad management and its impact on software quality/customers (can’t help it, i hate avoidable toil). Every single time it achieved nothing whatsoever in the long term (the minuscule improvements I managed to make over 12–18 months were undone a few weeks after I left). But I had expanded large amount of energy and political capital resulting in having to leave the companies to protect my sanity followed by months to recover from the burnout. Is there a point in fixing companies that don’t want to be helped (which seems to be the vast majority)? It’s their cash to set on fire after all and changing jobs regularly to keep it fresh (every company has a slightly different twist on dysfunctional) seems to be a better strategy for the individual cog.
- cutemonster 4y ago
  > Is there a point in fixing companies that don’t want to be helped It depends? One way of thinking could be, that if a company's business idea isn't useful for society, then, don't bother fixing the company? Examples might be online poker games, or high frequency trading. How is it helpful for society, if traders make a bit more money, or if the poker gaming company manages to tie people to their laptops some more hours each week? In the second example, more managers could be better (since the business idea is slightly negative to society?). What did the companies you tried to fix, do, if I can ask? > fixing companies that don’t want to be helped Hmm, I wonder if it can be helpful to think about individuals rather than companies. Then the question becomes more similar to: "Is there a point in explaining to a manager that it's better for the company if s/he fires him- / herself?"
  - ornornor 4y ago
    Things ranging from not actively harmful but not exactly useful or solving any real problem (just burning through VC money), to egovernment. Every case was mostly a waste of my time and energy. I don’t think you can help someone or something that doesn’t want to be saved. And this is exactly how these companies got there in my experience. Those who actually do want to change actually reach out and get the expertise they need. I think I can’t help it though because I see the human cost in people working there and hating their lives as a result. It’s hard for me to accept that they’re adults with agency and it should be on them to try and get out.
    - cutemonster 4y ago
      Ok :-) I suppose it can be hard to not try to improve things, isn't it a bit in some people's nature to want to do that. > I don’t think you can help someone or something that doesn’t want to be saved. Yes, I guess trying to make as much money as one can, until one finds a more constructive workplace, might be a more sanity-preserving approach
gitfan86 4y ago
Thanks for your work. I have a lot of experience being the engineering in inefficient organizations and I don't see how society would survive if all the dead weight was fired. The 10% of us that do real actual work would make 90% of the wages and the management class would live in poverty or be forced to take manual labor or customer service jobs. But there wouldn't be enough customer service job available because there are so few of us actual productive employees, and this problem would only get worse as those of us that understand technology are able to leverage it to remove the need for even more people.
- cutemonster 4y ago
  Excess management can be seen as a form of Universal Basic Income? For people in management. Just that to get this UBI, one needs to sit on an office chair and be in pointless meetings. And if society is partly built on this for-some-people UBI, and it's suddenly removed and there aren't enough jobs, then yes I suppose some chaos would ensue? ... Hmm but what if there was real Universal Basic Income. Maybe then it'd be simpler to keep organization more slim and effective (not "the end of the world" if a manager lost his/her job and there was nothing else). @Gary H -- yes thanks for your work and thanks for linking to the book :-) I'm checking it out
  - gitfan86 4y ago
    People need purpose, even if that purpose is pointless from my perspective, if they think they are delivering value by creating spreadsheets of project plans that are never followed, that is better than that person sitting on the couch all day with nothing to do.

ornornor 4y ago

> If you want some practical ideas on how to bust bureaucracy, whatever your role or title, check out my book “Humanocracy” (available at Amazon), or “The New Human Movement” video series on YouTube. Didn’t know about your book/YT and haven’t read/watched them. That said, isn’t it a very fast road to nowhere and burnout? I’ve tried many times to fix bad management and its impact on software quality/customers (can’t help it, i hate avoidable toil). Every single time it achieved nothing whatsoever in the long term (the minuscule improvements I managed to make over 12–18 months were undone a few weeks after I left). But I had expanded large amount of energy and political capital resulting in having to leave the companies to protect my sanity followed by months to recover from the burnout. Is there a point in fixing companies that don’t want to be helped (which seems to be the vast majority)? It’s their cash to set on fire after all and changing jobs regularly to keep it fresh (every company has a slightly different twist on dysfunctional) seems to be a better strategy for the individual cog.

cutemonster 4y ago
> Is there a point in fixing companies that don’t want to be helped It depends? One way of thinking could be, that if a company's business idea isn't useful for society, then, don't bother fixing the company? Examples might be online poker games, or high frequency trading. How is it helpful for society, if traders make a bit more money, or if the poker gaming company manages to tie people to their laptops some more hours each week? In the second example, more managers could be better (since the business idea is slightly negative to society?). What did the companies you tried to fix, do, if I can ask? > fixing companies that don’t want to be helped Hmm, I wonder if it can be helpful to think about individuals rather than companies. Then the question becomes more similar to: "Is there a point in explaining to a manager that it's better for the company if s/he fires him- / herself?"
- ornornor 4y ago
  Things ranging from not actively harmful but not exactly useful or solving any real problem (just burning through VC money), to egovernment. Every case was mostly a waste of my time and energy. I don’t think you can help someone or something that doesn’t want to be saved. And this is exactly how these companies got there in my experience. Those who actually do want to change actually reach out and get the expertise they need. I think I can’t help it though because I see the human cost in people working there and hating their lives as a result. It’s hard for me to accept that they’re adults with agency and it should be on them to try and get out.
  - cutemonster 4y ago
    Ok :-) I suppose it can be hard to not try to improve things, isn't it a bit in some people's nature to want to do that. > I don’t think you can help someone or something that doesn’t want to be saved. Yes, I guess trying to make as much money as one can, until one finds a more constructive workplace, might be a more sanity-preserving approach

gitfan86 4y ago

Thanks for your work. I have a lot of experience being the engineering in inefficient organizations and I don't see how society would survive if all the dead weight was fired. The 10% of us that do real actual work would make 90% of the wages and the management class would live in poverty or be forced to take manual labor or customer service jobs. But there wouldn't be enough customer service job available because there are so few of us actual productive employees, and this problem would only get worse as those of us that understand technology are able to leverage it to remove the need for even more people.

cutemonster 4y ago
Excess management can be seen as a form of Universal Basic Income? For people in management. Just that to get this UBI, one needs to sit on an office chair and be in pointless meetings. And if society is partly built on this for-some-people UBI, and it's suddenly removed and there aren't enough jobs, then yes I suppose some chaos would ensue? ... Hmm but what if there was real Universal Basic Income. Maybe then it'd be simpler to keep organization more slim and effective (not "the end of the world" if a manager lost his/her job and there was nothing else). @Gary H -- yes thanks for your work and thanks for linking to the book :-) I'm checking it out
- gitfan86 4y ago
  People need purpose, even if that purpose is pointless from my perspective, if they think they are delivering value by creating spreadsheets of project plans that are never followed, that is better than that person sitting on the couch all day with nothing to do.