Large corporations are inherently doomed to inefficiency?
Discussion
The article is written about IT contracting in banking, but the point about bureaucratic inertia and political infighting has applied to every large organisation(particularly highly hierarchical ones) I've ever worked for or had dealings with, public or private sector.
Editted for biff formatting
Editted for biff formatting
Edited by hidetheelephants on Monday 12th December 18:25
gtdc said:
They have a lot of meetings. And do a lot of travelling to meetings. Then they write reports about meetings. Then they talk about the meetings is corporate babble.
LOL, I've overheard loads of business conversations and meetings on the KK - York choo-choo and the amount of b
ks that goes on is really funny. There's always some guy rushing a half arsed ppt pres (no not reviewing it actually starting it), an arrogant tt with a couple of sycophantic colleagues/aides/scivvys hanging on his every empty word or a dweeb of an I.T guy who takes extreme pleasure in his loud half hour phone conversation as to which brand of laptop will be best for his colleague/boss or whoever. Not sure any of this is particularly specific to large corps though and it's probably not fair of me to make these assumptions but it does make me laugh. Eric Mc said:
Pardon?
Oh yes, you're the guy who mixes up his 'Voights' and his 'meins'. Easily confused or deliberately obtuse. Back OT, I would suggest the larger the company the greater the 'out of sight, out of mind' effect, where people can hide their inadequacies with greater ease. With smaller companies it is much more evident if someone is not up to scratch as they are more exposed to people who do take notice and will do something about it. Smaller companies have fewer links in the hierarchy and word can pass around, plus the directors are more likely to see first hand the results of their policies in action. Programs like Undercover Boss are a tenuous example where the boss doesn't see what goes on at the dirty end and the lower echelons don't even know what the boss looks like.
El Guapo said:
Serious inefficiency kicks in around the 25-employee level in my experience.
Interesting suggestion; for no readily explicable reason my employers have 4 managers with 'safety' in their job titles, none of whom have any control of safety in practical terms; that's dealt with by another manager and his deputy. The company has about 600 shopfloor staff and perhaps 40-50 admin and management.Management of large corporates is always going to be a pain in the arse. My dad ran a company with around 25 staff and didn't have any issues.
It just comes down to organisation and who you hire. If you hire the right people and structure the company the right way you shouldn't suffer these problems.
Although saying that my dad did say that he didn't like the idea of opening another regional branch due to the complexities of hiring people you can trust to do the job.
But then that was shortly after a member of his staff had tried to steal a laptop from a client site. Bad apples do tend to get through from time to time.
The mistake i think most make is creating non jobs.
It just comes down to organisation and who you hire. If you hire the right people and structure the company the right way you shouldn't suffer these problems.
Although saying that my dad did say that he didn't like the idea of opening another regional branch due to the complexities of hiring people you can trust to do the job.
But then that was shortly after a member of his staff had tried to steal a laptop from a client site. Bad apples do tend to get through from time to time.
The mistake i think most make is creating non jobs.
hidetheelephants said:
Digga said:
One fatal flaw of some 'bigs' is a lack of HR rigor.
Instead of hiring the best and managing or firing those who do not meet expectations, they simply find 'safe' places to shunt useless people into.
You've just described the whole public sector there.Instead of hiring the best and managing or firing those who do not meet expectations, they simply find 'safe' places to shunt useless people into.
A remarkably true statement in many areas of the public sector. In the Police I can think of numerous people who are essentially useless but lead a charmed life throughout their careers in safe roles with as little to do with actual Policing as possible... Generally the supervisiors on frontline/significant teams would just rather get rid. It does seem remarkably difficult to sack people for being rubbish, assuming they don't commit high-profile feckwittery.I imagine the picture in local authorities is far, far worse. Received a recent e-mail from someone at a local Council who "doesn't work Fridays due to work/life balance" (On their signature). Really? Where do I sign up?
Tallbut Buxomly said:
I was astonished when my brother was turned down for a civil service job as his cv was only 1 page long. They expected a minimum of 3 pages to be considered for interview.
How ridiculously inefficient.
Maybe your brother doesn't understand the difference between a CV and a résumé?How ridiculously inefficient.
thinfourth2 said:
i don't know if it is the size i think it is more the hieght of it
I think one of the supermarkets only has about 6 levels or less from the shelf stacker to the head man.
I think one of the supermarkets only has about 6 levels or less from the shelf stacker to the head man.
i think this is factor, but equally it can mitigate against if people believe that thery don't have to take direction from others who despite being accountable to the same line manager have a different job description which includes directing others ...
carreauchompeur said:
A remarkably true statement in many areas of the public sector. In the Police I can think of numerous people who are essentially useless but lead a charmed life throughout their careers in safe roles with as little to do with actual Policing as possible... Generally the supervisiors on frontline/significant teams would just rather get rid. It does seem remarkably difficult to sack people for being rubbish, assuming they don't commit high-profile feckwittery.I imagine the picture in local authorities is far, far worse. Received a recent e-mail from someone at a local Council who "doesn't work Fridays due to work/life balance" (On their signature). Really? Where do I sign up?
Fittster said:
It would be interesting to see how co-operatives stack up against the more common styles of management structure.
given the difficulties the Co-Op has had you could argue not all that well - though whether that is a historical ideological hangover or simply down to a lack of effective management , although other Co-Op arrangements work well and JLP always seems to do well enough It's alright when people like me don't have to get hold of you on Fridays.
I work all sorts of odd shifts and it does rather annoy me that some of the office wallahs take it upon themselves to pick their own hours.
Case in point- Start a late shift at 2pm. Phone up our ASU (They prepare Court files and the like) to speak to the casebuilder. "Oh no, he's gone home, he starts at 6am".
Great- So I need to speak to you now, your contracted hours are 8-4 but it's more convenient for you to get in early. So you make it up yourself.
A lot of that has been knocked on the head now- Flexitime hours restricted to within "public facing" hours.
I work all sorts of odd shifts and it does rather annoy me that some of the office wallahs take it upon themselves to pick their own hours.
Case in point- Start a late shift at 2pm. Phone up our ASU (They prepare Court files and the like) to speak to the casebuilder. "Oh no, he's gone home, he starts at 6am".
Great- So I need to speak to you now, your contracted hours are 8-4 but it's more convenient for you to get in early. So you make it up yourself.
A lot of that has been knocked on the head now- Flexitime hours restricted to within "public facing" hours.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff