Below are all the posts — topics as well as replies — that mention the hashtag #bureaucracy.
Mention #bureaucracy in your post to continue the discussion!
The obsession with centralzation, offshoring, and squeezing every last dollar out of the business is classic MBA thinking that looks great on a spreadsheet and fails in the real world.
You CANNOT run a complex org by treating people as interchangeable costs and ignoring those who actually understand the business.
Eventually, the bureaucracy, declining service, and loss of talent will cost far more than these supposed efficiencies ever saved. At that point, the game is over!!!
201 types of managers. 47 meetings. 19 approval chains. 12 PowerPoints.
1 technical guy doing the actual work. 💀
Enough is enough. All these GCCs mushrooming across the globe aren’t savings, they’re a massive cost drain. On paper we pitch it as labor arbitrage. In reality, we’re bleeding money in many ways no one wants to put on a slide.
Here’s what it actually costs the company:
Duplication and rework: The same work gets done 2x, 3x, 4x across several functions and regions because no one is clear on ownership. Then we pay again to undo and redo it.
Coordination tax: Endless meetings, handoffs, time-zone ping-pong, and “alignment” calls that add zero value. Hours turn into weeks.
Quality and speed hit: Confusion over who owns what slows decisions to a crawl. We ship late, ship broken, and pay to fix it.
Attrition and morale: Good people burn out navigating the bureaucracy and leave. Replacing them costs more than we “saved.”
Leadership overhead: We keep adding layers just to manage the GCCs instead of managing the business.
Needless travel and real estate: do we even have a number of how much we spend on T&E with GCC travel as well as the real estate?
So leaders, stop hiding behind “labor arbitrage.” Wake up. Stop the endless mushrooming of GCCs. Have some common sense and dignity, and start running the company like you actually care about costs and outcomes.
Why does every little thing have to turn into a bureaucratic nightmare? Even the managers are being micromanaged from above, so nobody can actually get anything done.
Sooo, is the Client Executive model helping anyone close deals? Client Executives are getting pulled into every deal nowadays. I see them handling questions that sales should covered. maybe this works somewhere. maybe. yet i'm struggling to see the benefit if it adds another step, layers work, slows things down. i doubt that a CE can help win or grow a deal
Granted there was bureaucracy at some levels, but nothing as what we see now. I'm seriously missing Juniper. Ofcourse nothing that we can do..
just remembering good old days
Why are there Directors reporting to Directors? VPs reporting to VPs? A bloated org tree for sure.
These overpaid new AVPs, VPs and SVPs needs to be sent out the door. Terrible leadership that just packages up the good work of others and represent it as their own.
Now that the company is in trouble, these bureaucrats pushed out all key talent and replaced them with inexperienced but easy to control lemmings. Time to start with a clean slate. Bring back those key talents that left and restore the business. The brain drain is too intense for minor changes. Go big or just sell the company. All these leadership decisions just shows you that Alex couldn’t care less anyway.
Dell's mgmt constantly: overpromises, sets unrealistic expectations, and pushes sw products to market before they are ready to be released - u'll be in a permanent beta.... also, Dell prioritizes HW sales over developing innovative / competitive enterprise SW . This leads to experienced software engineers and technical leaders leave after reorgs or acquisitions, often replaced by process-oriented managers & RED TAPE. There will be way too many meetings, mgrs, approvals, processes, and admin reqs - everything will be slow.... Finally you will deal with unecessary tech complexity - pure sh-t - kubernetes all over the place, dev will be hard, maintenance even harder. You have been warned. Now let the thumbs down for this post begin.
In the same breath, Verizon requires employees to get manager approval just to use AI tools.
The irony? Managers and executives already have access without approval—while the people actually doing the work and delivering results have to jump through hoops.
If the goal is to empower employees and reduce bureaucracy, this is exactly the opposite.
Bureaucracy with an AI label.
Comcast was basically a utility that was overstaffed for many years. It has been full of bureaucracy and political nonsense that was masked by what seemed to be a never ending revenue stream, regardless of poor guest service. Now that they are losing and revenues have plummeted, that same leadership team that built that bloated bureaucracy has no idea how to manage through it. Now their company leaders want to tell the staff in a town hall that they haven’t done a good job - maybe you should look in the mirror and at your VPs - show some actual leadership and accept responsibility for how poorly your company has been led down this path. You pride yourself on eNPS - it starts at the top with the SVPs taking ownership of their own failures. Good luck.
People here have plenty of ideas, but very few seem to survive the process. By the time something gets through all the approvals, there's barely anything left of the original idea.
Risk is filled with excessive layers of management and bureaucracy that prevents anything from being accomplished. Everyone appears to be a director and highly compensated to keep the up facade.
Negative employee reviews for Ameriprise Financial on platforms like Indeed focus on high work stress, heavy bureaucracy, and inconsistent local team cultures.
Leadership keeps treating employees like cr-p, and we're just supposed to be okay with it. We have two CEOs, endless bureaucracy, bloated management, and a company direction that makes no sense - but somehow the problem is never with those above us.
A union would finally put a stop to treating employees like pawns, and force leadership to make real strategic decisions instead of hiding behind short-term tactical ones.
Too much bureaucracy and inefficiency. Management to employees ratios are off the charts for support roles.
If you take a look at the org chart, 6 EVPs reporting into Chief HR Officer with countless VPs underneath them. Seems very excessive for a corporate function? Corporate Relations doesn’t seem to have anywhere near as much bloat
Every failed system in this organization has at least two architects attached to it.
Somehow, the more architects we add, the more legacy we create, the more bureaucracy we invent, and the slower engineering moves.
At this point, "Architect" feels less like a role and more like a witness to the crime.
They’ve hired another PayPal leader, and I’m honestly very happy about it. At this point, anyone would be an improvement over Tanya J. and Nancy C.
I just hope the new leader recognizes how much of the old leadership culture is still holding us back—and how slowly some teams in the digital space move.
I also hope they take a hard look at the ridiculous structure we have today, where it takes 5–6 stakeholders just to get a single button added to a digital page.
I’m really hoping this brings a meaningful cultural shift, with more accountability, faster decision-making, and a lot less bureaucracy.
OK, so I have sympathy for everyone who's impacted, and nobody deserves this. They don't need to get rid of all the directors and VPs because some of them actually know what they're doing. But seriously, and objectively, they should get rid of the ones who have no understanding of the ins and outs of the team. Their biggest contributions are taking credit for their managers' and ICs' work, creating unnecessary bureaucracy, and dragging everyone into endless, pointless meetings. The team/org would honestly run much better without them.
Dan talked about eliminating bureaucracy and said communication below Band 5 isn’t flowing effectively.
The reality is that nothing will change unless the organization is truly flattened. My organization just went through a massive reorg, and I still have two layers of Band 6 management above me—even though I’m also a Band 6 employee.
If leadership is serious about reducing bureaucracy, the conversation can’t stop at messaging. It has to include eliminating the excessive layers between individual contributors and the executive team.
Also I want to know what AD will do differently than D and Sr. Director.
Innovation doesn’t die because people run out of ideas.
It dies when meetings replace making.
When every experiment needs five approvals.
When PowerPoint or Keynote become more valuable than prototypes.
When politics outrank curiosity.
When protecting careers matters more than questioning assumptions.
When “alignment” becomes code for “don’t rock the boat.”
The irony is that the companies famous for disrupting industries often become experts at preserving the status quo.
You can hire the world’s best designers, engineers, and creatives, but if they’re rewarded for managing risk instead of creating value, don’t be surprised when innovation turns into theater.
Real innovation is messy. It creates tension. It challenges leaders. It makes some people uncomfortable.
If everyone in the room agrees, you’re probably not innovating—you’re just documenting consensus.
The biggest threat to innovation isn’t a lack of talent.
It’s bureaucracy wearing an innovation badge.
#Innovation #Leadership #ProductDevelopment #DesignThinking #CorporateCulture #Engineering #Creativity
We instead surplus CO and outside workforces to be replaced with made up titles that just send us emails of no value. Nonsense over and over.
The company is so top-heavy that management layers seem to outnumber the people doing actual engineering. Many of the best engineers—the ones who lived and breathed problem-solving—have long since left. What remains is an army of title-holders more interested in PowerPoint presentations, meetings, and career advancement than engineering.
The result is predictable: a growing shortage of genuine technical expertise and an organization that often struggles with problems that competent engineers should be able to solve routinely. Too many of today's so-called engineers couldn't design a simple cardboard box without forming a committee, scheduling a dozen meetings, and asking management for approval.
@j3+1kxyr77bx said it perfectly.
I can't help but wonder what most of the people in management positions actually do. They check in, they attend meetings, they send emails... What else? What do they actually produce? What value do they add? We have so many unnecessary layers that just slow things down and create more work for everyone else. It seems like we'd be so much more efficient with fewer managers.
Industry sentiment increasingly suggests that more than 95% of product managers are simply not required. Founders and executives have openly stated that up to 90% of these jobs are redundant, as core coordination, user research, and execution tasks can easily be absorbed by engineers, designers, or business operations staff. This has triggered an internal crisis of faith, leading to the rise of "Frauduct Managers"—individuals who entered the profession expecting to make a significant impact but now feel like their roles are a scam, consisting of endless alignment meetings, drafting PRDs, and administrative overhead without any real authority.
The fundamental issue is that many tech structures are actually building projects, not products. The widespread "product mindset" has been pushed to a level of insanity, resulting in the placement of product managers in highly specialized technical areas like data/backend teams where they are completely unnecessary. This setup floods organizations with data while leaving teams no wiser, creating an information controlled hierarchy that suppresses technical talent. When engineering capacity is artificially bottlenecked by administrative layers, it merely introduces overhead, driving teams back to a state where Scrum Masters or even direct squad leads contribute more to actual team velocity and project success.
Too many layers and way too many people who think they're important but don't actually contribute anything. We spend our days in pointless meetings, dealing with endless back-and-forth, and watching people fight over territory instead of actually moving things forward. Nothing gets accomplished because everyone is too busy trying to look like they're in charge. Flatten the management structure and watch as things improve overnight.
We have too many people between a task's start and its finish. Too many people get in the way of completing anything in a timely manner. I swear, it's almost Kafkaesque at this point. Removing several layers of middle management would improve the workflow immensely. Sadly, I know it's not going to happen.
There are so many strategy teams doing the same thing and then doing the work of other groups too. Then we have the external strategy groups doing the same thing. What’s the point?
Pros (Potential Benefits for Employees)
Higher wages and better compensation: Union workers often earn a premium (historically ~10-17% higher median wages in comparable roles, though this varies and can narrow over time). In finance, this could address complaints about stagnant pay amid high living costs or performance pressure.
Improved benefits and job security: Unions typically secure stronger health insurance, retirement contributions, paid leave, and protections against arbitrary firing or mass layoffs (common in finance during downturns or cost-cutting). Better transparency in bonuses, promotions, and performance metrics is a frequent goal.
Better working conditions: Reduced burnout from long hours (especially relevant for analysts or high-pressure advisory roles), predictable schedules, safer reporting of unethical practices, and mechanisms to address high turnover. Collective voice can make it easier to raise issues without individual retaliation.
Voice and power in decisions: Employees gain input on policies affecting them (e.g., staffing, training, tech changes like AI impacting jobs). This can reduce feelings of powerlessness in large firms.
Cons (Potential Drawbacks)
Dues and costs: Members typically pay dues (often 1-2% of pay), which reduce take-home income. There may also be costs or lost wages during strikes or negotiations.
Reduced flexibility and individualism: Finance roles (especially in sales, advising, or management) often reward individual performance with commissions, bonuses, or rapid advancement. Unions can introduce standardized pay scales, seniority rules, or restrictions that limit top performers' upside or make it harder to differentiate rewards.
Potential for slower firm growth and job impacts: Higher labor costs can lead companies to cut investment, R&D, hiring, or automate more (e.g., shifting to robo-advisors or offshore roles). Studies link strong union power to slower employment growth and reduced firm profitability/equity value in some sectors. Discount brokerages compete aggressively on low costs and efficiency.
Adversarial relationships and bureaucracy: Negotiations can create tension with management. Grievance processes, work rules, and slower decision-making may reduce agility in a fast-moving industry. Strikes (rare but possible) disrupt operations and client service
Challenges specific to finance: Regulatory environments (FINRA, SEC), licensing, client-facing duties, and confidentiality could complicate bargaining. High-skill, high-pay roles (e.g., portfolio managers) have less incentive to unionize than lower-paid support or branch staff. Union experience in the sector is limited, raising risks of missteps.
Key Considerations for Discount Brokerages and Money ManagersClient impact:
Union actions (e.g., work slowdowns) could affect service quality, trading execution, or advisory relationships in a trust-based, competitive industry.
Firm response: Companies may resist strongly due to thin margins in discount brokerage or performance sensitivity in money management. Success stories are more common in retail banking than front-office or advisory roles.
Current landscape: Unionization remains rare but is seeing some NLRB-supported momentum in finance. Efforts often focus on customer-facing or back-office staff rather than highly compensated professionals.
Having worked for this company for many years, I can’t tell you enough about all the “fluff” six-figure upper leadership roles that are simply created to promote up, and aren’t even needed.
Wasted money. And here we are.
The department lead role feels poorly defined. Team leaders are still carrying most of the delivery pressure, people management, prioritization conversations, and stakeholder updates. Instead of shielding teams or helping resolve conflicts, the role sometimes feels like an added reporting layer between directors and the people actually doing the work.
The bureaucracy is insane. You can't get anything done without jumping through fifteen pointless hoops. Pay is below average, which is insulting given what they put us through. Job security is a complete joke now. I'm spending most my free time applying to be able to get away.
error codes on every link, using multiple browsers to load things, password change failure, support tickets unanswered, HR unresponsive, expenses rejected / declined. what the fu-k is going on here. the monday morning bog down is so brutal EVERY week
with most of the layers doing nothing but making reports celebrating that the chocolate rations have been increased from 2.4% to 2.7% this quarter. Meanwhile back in the garages and CO's it's now BYOTP (toilet paper) time.
Verizon’s side of the house seriously needs to adapt some of the ways Frontier operates because, frankly, Frontier has always done certain things better. Faster execution, scrappier teams, less bureaucracy, and way less unnecessary process wrapped around every tiny initiative.
If I get added to one more Slack channel for something that could’ve been a two-sentence message, I’m going to scream. The amount of overcomplication is exactly why work slows down.
And leadership needs to be realistic about the culture issue. There are people on both sides who clearly don’t even want to be here anymore. Fine — give those people strong packages and let them move on. But keep the people who actually care, execute, innovate, and know how to get things done without turning every task into a 40-slide deck and six approvals.
Not everything has to be “the Verizon way.” Sometimes the better answer is already sitting right in front of you.
Any offer must be approved personally by Paul Gallagher, I thought he was meant to remove layers of approval...?
I'm leaving, and I can tell you right away I won't miss the endless approvals, the ancient systems that break daily, or watching my coworkers lose their minds. I was hired to build new things and spent four years keeping old junk running. This place broke me.
Oracle is still buried under layers of bureaucracy...............
The joke is we reach for Java even when a simple Bash script would do the job.
We build heavy frameworks for what should be lightweight data pipelines.
We take open-source software, wrap it, rename it, and present it as innovation
(Preact → OJet, Apache HTTP Server → OHS, and the pattern continues).
We talk about Java 26 to the outside world, while internally we’re still anchored to Java 8, maybe Java 17 at best.
We have 10 people maintaining a basic Makefile or CI/CD pipeline, but only 2 actually writing the code that matters.
We accepted JIRA but never promoted BugDB to external world. I remember BugDB team was sleeping without even REST API or changes for years.
We write thousands of test cases, yet the final validation still depends on manual checks. I remember same testcases ran every day in pipeline for 3-5 years continuously always passing.
We spend 1000's of lines writing CICD code, QA code for a Product code of just 10 lines. ( I remember for auditing a SQL file, we had 2 teams writing a new microservice)
We value people who gossip and go as a team rather than a game changer.
Jokes apart. when was the last time an executive actually sat with the team to rethink technology direction or for a futuristic directions. All they ask is document your ideas to Confluence and we will review. They take their favorites to meetings and show their faces.
The Outside world is changing a lot. The Talents are simply wasted without proper directions. There is a need of heavy change in top management layers specially reducing VP, Senior VP's and Directors who are not providing clear directions below and simply playing games.
For me, it's the procurement team. A $1000 payment can go over 6 months without any update. And they always direct me to another team A, and team a pointed me to team B and C. And finally it’s all of these 3 teams. Then they told me the payment is controlled by SHI. When I called SHI, they told me the vendor should have access to the link they provided.
Vendor provided invoice, then PO went to procurement again, one week before the deadline.
I escalated to VP, then they started to chase me down with PO.
What ridiculous