3 ms·
This reads as if the required amount of management for different initiatives is constant, but it isn't. One thing that happens is that when money is plentiful,
by hyperpape 2y ago
This reads as if the required amount of management for different initiatives is constant, but it isn't.
One thing that happens is that when money is plentiful, there is a push to find new ways to generate returns. When money is tight, new bets look bad, and companies may cut new bets and work on optimizing their existing cash-cows.
Strictly, that says nothing about the number of managers needed, but I do think it's less management intensive to keep on with what you're already doing.
- nine_zeros 2y agoThis is insightful and mirrors my understanding of corporations. New bets are too risky but existing bets need to be maintained for the sake of customers. Thus, new managers are not necessary as new teams are not necessary. Folding teams together also starts making sense. Fewer layers also starts making sense. Ultimately, management is overhead and administrative. Less important than individuals who are actually building, maintaining, advertising, and selling.
- chuckwfinley 2y ago[dead]
- asdasdsddd 2y ago> When money is tight, new bets look bad It's not optical, it's just bad. The risk adjusted returns for bets need to cross the interest rate threshold and when rates are high, the number of bets you can take must drop.