The motives behind some aspects of corporate behaviour sometimes really confuse me.
Two departments providing similar services to a big conglomerate: one is relatively small, and delivers very fast. The other is large, burdened with formal meetings, minutes, and many power struggles.
They are merged. The head of the small and high-delivery unit is made the head of all. BUT the next level from the OTHER department are all promoted into the level below him. NONE of his old team are any longer in close contact.
The unwieldy team becomes more and more dysfunctional.
He is sent on early retirement and someone completely new comes in.
Delivery still falls in speed and quality.
Why take just one aspect of a winning team and think it can change a political empire?
A company has a very dysfunctional department. Nothing out of it is good, let alone excellent. The head of the department moves on to something new.
No effort is made to evaluate where the discords in the department are. A new head arrives. The same pattern happens.
The head is reprimanded when he points out the undercover disruptions caused by one member of the department.
The disrupting member is moved and promoted. Shortly thereafter the new area becomes restive.
The head is ‘retrenched’.
How can the disrupter be trusted again?
A company with a long history of male chauvinism becomes a listed company outside its country of origin. The board expands. Within 10 years a female heads it. There is no other woman for two levels down in the power hierarchy.
Who thought those entrenched male chauvinists would be able to co-operate with the new head?