I agree there's a lot of empire-building in large orgs, and perverse incentives for management promotion where headcount is directly related to their career ladder. At the same time I completely disagree with the "vast majority" take on it, you can't just hire consultants when needed for ramping up a project, institutional knowledge is extremely important in any large org and I haven't seen any yet that has a streamlined and efficient onboarding process for that. Experience matters and that is a reason to keep an overhead of employees that might look unnecessary in accounting/MBA terms but is a pool of workers with enough knowledge to ramp up a project at a moment's time if the organisation needs.
The other side of this would be to keep a ship that's efficient for the current moment but that can't be steered rapidly when needed, that might kill or stagnate an organisation pretty quickly when markets change and the reaction time is too long.
As I said, I don't disagree completely, I'm not fond of upper management in general, and quite tired of the whole career game that is played in large orgs but your point of view is very, very cynical.
EDIT: OK, jeez, I'm willing to admit I'm wrong; but this doesn't even remotely square with any reality I've ever seen at about a dozen companies. People just hired to... do nothing? It doesn't make any sense at all. How many of you have an empty bug tracker? How many have zero tasks waiting for you when you clock out at the end of the day?
How does this square with a company like Google that is famous for having multiple teams competing with each other on the same product categories, ie the disaster that is their chat platform? Sure, there's work to do - because they're creating frivolous work intentionally. It's nothing but empire building. And the end result is a worse product!
I get that my topic is a bit of a tangent because you're talking mostly about IC productivity and the gist of my comment is on managerial incompetence. But ultimately my point is people are doing meaningless work and the system is designed for it. I've never worked somewhere that valued productivity over politics when it came time to promote people.
https://www.businessinsider.com/google-meta-staff-do-fake-wo...
Alphabet's Google and Facebook owner Meta had thousands of employees who don't do anything.
"There's nothing for these people to do — they're really — it's all fake work," he said. "Now that's being exposed, what do these people actually do, they go to meetings."
Google, he continued, had intentionally over-hired engineers and tech talent to stop them from moving to other companies, a strategy he described as "pretty coherent." But, he added, that meant engineers had been happy to "be entitled, sit at their desks, and do nothing."
And yet, somehow, these companies have existed for decades and the only time they’ve died out is usually because of technological leaps implemented by a competitor that looks very much like them.
As you approach maximum throughput, average queue size – and therefore average wait time – approaches infinity.
In order to have a quick and nimble organization you need to leave sufficient slack in your utilization of employees.
Also, let's add another charitable explanation to this:
As people acquire more experience in the org, they become more efficient. That means someone who was maybe idling 20% of the time is now idling 50% of the time - they are simply faster and better at doing their job, but for whatever reason they haven't been promoted yet or assigned new responsibilities.
I don't know whether this is "good" or "bad".
Yes. It is also informed by a 40-year career that has included a pretty even mix of working for both small and large organizations. Cynical != wrong.
Here is another cynical but informed observation: part of the modus operandi of large organizations is specifically to prevent any one person from becoming too important to fire. So as soon as someone starts to significantly outperform their peers, the organization actively moves to squash them because an individual contributor at 3 sigma is an existential threat to good order and discipline.
This is not speculation. This actually come up many years ago when I was interviewing for a CTO position. I was asked: what would you do if you had an engineer who outperformed everyone on their team by a wide margin, but who everyone disliked. The answer it turned out they were looking for (I learned after the fact): fire them. That's not the answer I gave, and I didn't get the job.
I've also tried both strategies (work hard, and slack off) over the years when I've worked at large organizations. I've consistently gotten much better performance reviews when I slacked off.
(This is absolutely not true at small companies BTW, which is why I vastly prefer working there.)
Also failure to do so results in you and your team being merge underneath another guy's bigger team, and you becoming redundant because they only need one boss and the guy with the bigger team gets to keep his job.
It's kind of like playing Civ but IRL with real people.
Companies like this can be outcompeted by others that manage to be less bloated, at least for the moment.
But I do claim it's the only counterforce there is.
Can confirm. Worked for two Japanese mobile game companies that drove themselves out of business as they strove for headcount over production value.