9 ms·
But how would this really work? Someone wants to create a new drug, but it’ll cost millions of euros and years of trials to bring to the market. Who approves an
by azinman2 3y ago
But how would this really work? Someone wants to create a new drug, but it’ll cost millions of euros and years of trials to bring to the market. Who approves and commits?
- p1esk 3y agoThey are only firing 40% of the managers. There will be plenty left.
- m3m3tic 3y agoJust another run-of-the-mill post-ZIRP bloated org chart cleanup with a nice PR spin. Spend more time innovating on your products, it's a mistake to innovate on company hierarchy, despite what PR departments like to suggest.
- lazide 3y agoNot that they’ll be able to talk to anyone in their org with those types of setups.
- naasking 3y agoBuild a coalition of people who work in various departments, legal, marketing, research, etc. with enough momentum that could be enough to earn the credibility required. Another possibility is straight up democratic voting. These large investments place the company in financial peril, so maybe everyone should have a day. There are many ways to organize, hierarchical top-down control is useful but overused.
- nradov 3y agoUltimately someone has to approve the expense. Who makes that decision?
- naasking 3y agoWhy the implicit assumption that only a singular person can approve an expense?
- asadotzler 3y agoThe CEO can. Not always ideal to have the CEO deciding the restroom soap budget, but if it's not delegated to someone else, it's up to the CEO. Keeping the company running is literally their job.
- nradov 3y agoObviously that's not feasible for a large enterprise.
- refurb 3y agoIt's not going to impact the people doing the day to day work much, if at all. It's going to hit the layers of management those people report to. I've been through it. It has it's benefits (fewer decision makers) but also drawbacks (decision makers tend not to have the full picture).