11–20 of 27 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All comes down to incentives. No doubt the person who made that decision would have got a lot more pushback if they'd wanted to spend $3 million hiring or developing internal expertise.
The old “nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft” argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the US, it's in any system that control is sought after by those that seek power. This is why democratising power is so important, regardless of system. Those seeking power will always find methods aligned with the system to do so. In an advanced capitalist society, it's methods like McKinsey, in a kleptocracy, it's whoever is the biggest crime boss.
> This is why democratising power is so important, regardless of system. What makes you think that some form of democracy will help with whatever you diagnose here?
I don't get how such companies exist. At best they are clowns, at worst criminals. Why would one hire them?
Mostly for the executive who hired them to be able to say: the very expensive management consultants recommended we do X, Y, Z, so we should do X, Y, Z.
Still, I'm glad they left the company. I think it's better to have institutions you can aim at goals without the people inside it working against you.
I don't get how such companies exist. At best they are clowns, at worst criminals. Why would one hire them?
1) If it worked then it's all thanks to your impeccable ability to get the right tools to get the job done
2) If it fizzles out it's all still OK because you've tried best and hired the best consultancy
3) If it goes catastrophically bad you're OK because it is clearly the fault of the consulting company
Basically you buy "heads I win, tails you lose".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the US, it's in any system that control is sought after by those that seek power. This is why democratising power is so important, regardless of system. Those seeking power will always find methods aligned with the system to do so. In an advanced capitalist society, it's methods like McKinsey, in a kleptocracy, it's whoever is the biggest crime boss.
> This is why democratising power is so important, regardless of system. What makes you think that some form of democracy will help with whatever you diagnose here?
Banality of Evil, Hannah Arendt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem#Banality...
I don't get how such companies exist. At best they are clowns, at worst criminals. Why would one hire them?
Because what they give you is priceless: 1) If it worked then it's all thanks to your impeccable ability to get the right tools to get the job done 2) If it fizzles out it's all still OK because you've tried best and hired the best consultancy 3) If it goes catastrophically bad you're OK because it is clearly the fault of the consulting company Basically you buy "heads I win, tails you lose".
Please don't go over to either extreme of the spectrum (of opinion).
Those companies make the obscene amounts of money because they do generally _work_. They are like dietary supplements: as long as they don't kill anyone they don't really need to do anything useful to sell well.
So in most cases the outcome is somewhere between "good enough" and "meh", and any occasional great success is appropriately used for marketing purposes.
The "catastrophically bad" cases are rare because they do directly impact their future business opportunities. They try really hard not to make things _worse_.
TL;DR: These companies exist because they do fill a real need ("of doing something without taking responsibility if it doesn't work out") and at the very least they generally do no harm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because what they give you is priceless: 1) If it worked then it's all thanks to your impeccable ability to get the right tools to get the job done 2) If it fizzles out it's all still OK because you've tried best and hired the best consultancy 3) If it goes catastrophically bad you're OK because it is clearly the fault of the consulting company Basically you buy "heads I win, tails you lose".
And to add some context, given a couple of lifes ago I was rubbing shoulders with those people: Please don't go over to either extreme of the spectrum (of opinion). Those companies make the obscene amounts of money because they do generally _work_. They are like dietary supplements: as long as they don't kill anyone they don't really need to do anything useful to sell well. So in most cases the outcome is somewhere b…
Except taking money from whoever hired them. Fine if CEOs of private companies want to lose money, but at least public entities should be forbidden from spending public money into those jokes.
> doing something without taking responsibility
Also CEOs tend to get a very high salary because of their "responsibilities", so I don't like the idea that they get the high salary but have a way to not get the responsibilities. Probably they should just not get the indecent salary in the first place.