Was always curious about that from an outcome perspective. It seemed like a company could go "manager-lean" (ax manager count, retain employees) for awhile, easier than vice versus.
I'd imagine a lot of paperwork got back up, but presumably the company business roughly kept going. True or false?
I think the overriding lesson I learned from my time doing that job was that people dramatically overestimate their value to a firm.
That’s true of ninja rockstar developers and vp directors of business dev. Largely the world keeps turning no matter who leaves a firm no matter the circumstances.
There is a lot of confirmation bias in this observation. Frankly, the dead have no voices and the missing value and / or damage is often simply unobserved by those who are left.
It's rare that the damage is surfaced. I did see an event once though when a fairly senior manager made repeated attempts to hand over some data collection and reporting when they were made redundant but were rebuffed by colleagues and their manager alike. Essentially this person was seen as a bit of a third wheel, and many comments were hurled around during the lay off process along the lines of "not clear what his real contribution is".
Well, it turned out that the data that he was collecting, analysising and reporting on was fundamental to the running of a strategic investment. Some months after he left the said project tanked, and because the data was not available a lot of money that potentially should have been recoverable wasn't.
I'd imagine a lot of paperwork got back up, but presumably the company business roughly kept going. True or false?