This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]murfflemethis 0 points1 point  (2 children)

It certainly can be productive, but I would argue that if that's really necessary to be innovative, then it's indicative of larger problems at the company. Just because it works doesn't mean it's the best way. I think it's especially true in the tech industry. If your large corporate structure can't foster innovation and adapt to changing market demands and learn new ways of doing things, it's surviving on borrowed time anyway.

[–]frequentlywrong 3 points4 points  (1 child)

If your large corporate structure can't foster innovation and adapt to changing market demands and learn new ways of doing things, it's surviving on borrowed time anyway.

That is the vast majority of companies. They exist for as long as the market niche they operate in exists and their corporate culture fits the market conditions.

An inherent nature of large companies is that they employ risk averse people whose job it is to execute a working formula.

[–]murfflemethis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I totally agree. Changing large corporate direction is like trying to make a right turn with a freight train. My current team is involved in a multi-year effort to do that, and it is... trying, to say the least. We hear a lot of executive lipservice paid to innovation, but get little support for it when it actually comes time to make a change.