Its good in theory, but in practice it doesn't work. Those guys who mastered the political process. They don't get fired. Not getting fired is what they do. Thats the thing they're really good at.
Exactly. And it's not just tech. Most large companies have mid-level workers whose sole job is to not to get laid off (fired). I pity anyone under them cause they are usually the hardest working and first to go. Companies should be looking top-down instead of the usual bottom-up.
And man, it gets cut-throat. You know, when I traded, I used to think that was the most cut-throat work environment. Then the firm I was trading for got acquired by a bigger (much bigger) "traditional" bank. I quickly realized the trading floor was a picnic compared to mid-level management (at a bank they are called VP's) politics. At least a trader, you know the score. Make a profit you win. Don't you leave. Working at this bank; I had to learn to watch my back.
It was at that point I decided to leave banking, and NYC.
It also applies to countries. Look at the increasing resources that go to people who produce little or nothing of value to others eg lawyers, lobbyists, politicians, financial engineers, LBO operators etc. Not to mention many of the people on welfare.
You're saying that lawyers and politicians provide little or no value to others? Don't democracy and a fair legal system require good lawyers and politicians?
Sure, and companies might need some middle mangers. That doesn't mean none of the middle managers, lawyers, and politicians are dead weight. This latest session of Congress has been historically unproductive, passing fewer than half as many bills as the previous record set in 2013.
With apologies (and a tip of the hat) to Mr Gates, I posit that measuring the progress of Congress by the quantities of bills they pass is roughly analogous to measuring the progress of airplane design by its weight.
You are right, hiring and firing is a political process, and so you are right, its vulnerable to manipulation by the shrewdest political players.
My assumption, however, is that the layoffs are managed by senior management, who are the shrewdest of all the political players. If they do layoffs right, they put the power of firing into the hands of people in a separate power structure. I mean people like external consultants, or a special committee.
If that isn't the case; and if mid-level management is providing the data to direct layoffs, then yes, its a colossal disaster.
One example of right layoff I have seen is at the rail-road company in my town. They hired consultants to help with the process.
My friend explained me how it went. Each person was given a questionnaire asking whom they are reporting to and who are reporting to them. The organization was so bad that many managers did not know who are all the people reporting to them. These people and others many people who were working from home most of the time were the first set of people to go.
This is why the problem inevitably gets worse over time. If you think it's bad at Microsoft, visit IBM. It's mostly insiders, and everyone has a way of looking like they hit their metrics, while the company falls apart.
