Very Possibly the Same here. Senior/Management types are encouraged, even incentivised to make changes in order to justify their yearly progression. Even if things don’t need changing and have worked for years, they have to try and change/improve to stand out and get that moneyyyy
“Parkinson’s Law” is an interesting book on the comedy of being a successful manager. Eg, one rule was don’t teach any subordinate all of how to do your job. Delegate different parts to different people so they can’t sack/replace you easily.
I think I work for the same, erm, company as you, and I swear that 1/2 the things that higher-ups make us do is purely to justify their existence.
Very Possibly the Same here. Senior/Management types are encouraged, even incentivised to make changes in order to justify their yearly progression. Even if things don’t need changing and have worked for years, they have to try and change/improve to stand out and get that moneyyyy
“Parkinson’s Law” is an interesting book on the comedy of being a successful manager. Eg, one rule was don’t teach any subordinate all of how to do your job. Delegate different parts to different people so they can’t sack/replace you easily.
The higher the position, the less skill that’s actually required.
A company like Qantas can easily operate with out a CEO. But let them try and fly planes without a crew.
Every week (or two) we get messages from director on we need to work more efficiently and how standardizing documents is preferred.
It’s usually in some overtly positive message with life examples and shit, that few bother to read, myself included.
Meanwhile when it comes to actually doing that, it’s met with resistance at every level.