2 ms·
It imposes an enormous amount of operational overhead involved and destroys organization stability. All you need is a single manager in a single year who doesn'
by plorkyeran 2y ago
It imposes an enormous amount of operational overhead involved and destroys organization stability. All you need is a single manager in a single year who doesn't understand the benefit of something for its budget to get gutted with ZBB, and once that happens it can take years to rebuild. ZBB starts from the premise that employees are fungible and can either be freely replaced or freely reassigned, which is not very realistic.
- _heimdall 2y agoI don't know much about how companies really implement a ZBB, if anyone even does, but I'd argue that if organizational changes are om the table every year that's an unnecessary recipe for disaster. Budgeting doesn't have to mean asking the question of whether you need all the people you have, it's just asking what the priorities are and how to allocate capital. Priority number one should always be maintaining the best team possible, any other priority is going to fail anyway if there's no trust and everyone at the company is worried about getting fired just for budget. If that's the main issue with ZBB for a company, budgeting really is the least of their problems in my opinion. Employees need to trust leadership and leaderhsip needs to both earn that trust and trust their employees as well. This is actually really similar to a problem I have with how OKRs are done. They should be done from the bottom up not the top down. The idea of OKRs, and agile, sound great but they're just used as a mechanism for top down control because the company is fundamentally lacking trust.